Military Review

Abrams win: the last major tank battle of the XNUMXth century

94

Source: coffeeordie.com


100 hours of war


Americans regard the 1991 Iraqi campaign as almost a national feat. Indeed, the victory was won in a record 100 hours over the fourth largest army in the world. And the frames of the destroyed tanks for a long time entered the consciousness of Western inhabitants as symbols of the inferiority of Soviet military equipment.

The defeat of Saddam Hussein's troops was predetermined already in the first months after his reckless invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. By and large, the NATO leadership would not have time to settle the next showdown in the Middle East, if not for two "buts". First, the Soviet Union was no longer able to defend its interests in the region, which actually freed the hands of any initiatives of the North Atlantic Alliance. Secondly, Iraqi troops encroached on the sphere of oil interests of the United States, and this could not be left without operational intervention. Otherwise, the blatant annexation of Kuwait could become the norm for the Gulf states.

What kind of wars would have unfolded in the region and how much oil prices would have risen is anyone's guess. That is why, together with the armies of the West, Egypt and Syria came out against Hussein, providing several of their divisions. All countries of the League of Arab States, except Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization, have declared their support for NATO. It is worth paying special attention to the peculiar policy of the United States in this stories - A few days before the Iraqi aggression, the US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie assured Hussein that the Americans would not interfere in the showdown with Kuwait.


Disposition in front of the ground part of the operation. Source: bp.blogspot.com

This gave Baghdad additional confidence. But by January 1991, the Americans, with the support of 27 countries, had concentrated a powerful strike fist of 730 people. The Americans alone used about 250 of their own transport aircraft, as well as several chartered in the USSR, for airlifting military equipment by air. This army was deployed in Saudi Arabia and received little or no attacks from Baghdad. Two Iraqi brigades that tried to invade the Saudis do not count - the units were attacked by the local army with the support of the American aviation and quickly returned home. It is difficult to understand why NATO's multinational forces were given the opportunity to calmly turn around and concentrate to strike. On the one hand, Hussein feared the involvement of the Saudis in the conflict, and on the other, this was the beginning of the end of his small victorious war. Iraq has deployed against the coalition a southern group of troops, consisting of 400 thousand people, 3,4 thousand tanks, 4,8 thousand guns and 480 aircraft. Considering the predominantly defensive nature of the Iraqi army's actions, the superiority of the enemy's forces in certain categories was not overwhelming. According to experts, the superiority in manpower was 1,8 times, in tanks - 1,6 times, in combat aircraft - 5 times and in the number of ships - 14 times. The Iraqi army was stronger than the combined coalition forces in terms of the number of artillery barrels. At the same time, the total Iraqi army was an impressive force of 1,8 million personnel, 5,5 thousand tanks, 700 aircraft and more than 7,5 thousand guns and mortars. The training of Saddam Hussein's troops was at a high level - the great experience of the war with Iran affected. But the initial strategy of passive defense in depth did not pay off. Iraqi generals calmly watched as the coalition concentrated forces, and then launched the first airstrikes as part of Operation Desert Shield. As a result, instead of the planned 13 days, the anti-Iraqi coalition managed in just 100 hours.

Fight at "73 Easting"


The main striking force in the land operation was the American armored divisions of the 7th Corps, which advanced in the center of the front. The corps included 142 thousand personnel, more than one and a half thousand tanks, the same number of infantry fighting vehicles, 700 artillery pieces and 223 helicopters. The corps also included an English armored division. In addition to the US tankmen, on February 24, 1991, the French, Syrians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians and British joined the battle on the remaining flanks. Ground units stealthily advanced into northern Iraq and attacked the flank of Hussein's army in Kuwait. The offensive proceeded soon and already on the third day, February 26, the vanguard of the 7th corps east of El Busay met with the first Iraqi T-72. The car was from security and was promptly destroyed by the forces of the 2nd armored cavalry regiment, which was located at the very edge of the American armada. According to the recollections of American soldiers, the entrenched tank managed to make one inaccurate shot and was hit by ATGM fire. It was during this large-scale offensive that the Americans truly felt the beauty of GPS navigation - there was not a single landmark in the desert for tens of kilometers. Except, of course, the burning oil wells left behind by the retreating Iraqis. They set fire to oil to disguise against the ubiquitous NATO aircraft, as well as to protect against thermal imaging sights. A sandstorm was added to all the difficulties of the desert march, which did not allow the Americans to raise fire support helicopters into the air on the morning of February 26. At the initial stages of the operation, it was air support that was of key importance in the fight against enemy tanks and artillery. The Apaches, together with the A-6 and A-10 attack aircraft, knocked out up to 30% of the Iraqi armored vehicles during the air operation. Therefore, if flying weather had occurred on February 26, then a considerable part of the armored vehicles that had dug in in the 7th corps' offensive zone would have been destroyed. And the epic battle, or rather the beating of Iraqi tanks, which went down in history as 73 Easting Battle, would not have happened. The name of the battle was given in honor of the nearest object on the operational maps of the US Army.


Desert Storm. Ground part of the operation. Source: livejournal.com

Consider the tactics of the 7th Corps armored units. Tanks advanced on a wide front with an average daily speed of up to 3 km / h, in rare cases it was possible to accelerate to 10-15 km / h. Typical configurations on the battlefield were “line partly in line, partly backward” up to 1,5 km deep, as well as line formation. It was absolutely impossible to move in a column because of the many kilometers of dust clouds from the tracks of the moving vehicles. The first were tanks, behind at a distance of a kilometer from BMPs, providing cover from RPGs, infantry and ATGMs. An important advantage of Western armored vehicles were perfect guidance and night vision devices. Through thermal imagers, NATO members saw T-72, T-62 and T-55 at a distance of up to 2,5 km. They opened fire earlier, hit more accurately due to the better training of the gunners, and shells with depleted uranium ensured reliable defeat of outdated Soviet-made tanks. Abrams M-1, AMX-30 and Challengers fired at Iraqi tanks from long distances - this was the most common clash of armored vehicles during Desert Storm. But even when there were rare clashes at arm's length, the Iraqi tankers showed themselves not from the best side. According to veterans of the operation, Iraqi infantry fighting vehicles often failed to hit stationary targets at a distance of 400-500 meters. The anti-tank defense was very poorly organized - the Iraqis could not really use either the large stocks of the Malyutka ATGM or hit the armored vehicles from the RPG at the close range.

The M60A1 tanks of the 1st US Marine Division were not equipped with such advanced optics as the Abrams, but, nevertheless, in the area of ​​the Al-Burkan oil field, they managed to destroy more than 100 enemy tanks from a short distance without losses. It happened on February 25, 1991 in conditions of high smoke from burning wells and dust fog from another storm. This largely equalized the chances of relatively modern M60A1 and outdated T-55, but the Iraqis could not take advantage of this.


Source: coffeeordie.com

Let's return to the front of the 7th Corps offensive, in front of which the tanks of the elite division "Tawakalna", which the command of the Iraqi army threw to intercept the advancing coalition forces, stood up. It consisted of up to 220 T-72 and T-72 tanks, from light armored vehicles - 280 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. The Tawakalna was the most belligerent division in the Iraqi army, the first to enter Kuwait, and by February 26, it retained its relative combat capability. Having destroyed several scattered entrenched T-55s, the tankmen of the 2nd squadron of the 2nd armored cavalry regiment by 16:00 flew into the T-72 from the Tavakalna. In the course of a short battle, several Iraqi vehicles were destroyed, the regiment advanced further and started a firefight, in which 28 T-72s and 16 infantry fighting vehicles were killed. All this took place without losses on the part of the coalition and in just 23 minutes. In addition to the Iraqi Guards Tank Division, the 12th Brigade of the 9th Armored Division, parts of the 52nd Armored Division and the remnants of other tank units participated in the battles. Here the technique is motley - there were T-62s, and sometimes completely outdated T-55s were thrown into the attack against the Abrams. The Americans managed to place the main forces at the local dominant height, from which, as if on a training ground, they shot the counter-attacking Iraqi tanks. That is why it is impossible to consider the battle at 73 Easting as an analogue of Prokhorovka - the battle was fought at long distances, and the Iraqis often did not even see where they were being targeted at. In addition, most of the Tavakalna's tanks were dug in, and the crews, at the time of the enemy's attack, outside the vehicles were preparing for the next air raid. An air strike did not happen, but the rapidly advancing coalition troops killed a lot of manpower when they returned to armored vehicles. The Abrams were especially effective at night, when the T-72s were forced to return fire, focusing on the flashes of enemy tank guns - the initiative was on the side of the coalition. In addition, the Americans opened accurate fire from 2-2,5 kilometers, which the Iraqi tankers were not capable of. In addition, the T-72s were fired at the Abrams with obsolete armor-piercing shells, which had already been discontinued in the USSR.


Source: coffeeordie.com

By the morning of February 27, the company, which was repelling the main attacks of the Tavalkalna, had no tank shells and anti-tank guided missiles left. The situation was saved by the timely artillery that cut off the enemy from reinforcements with MLRS missiles and shells. As a result, under the fire of ATGM, tank guns and artillery, two brigades of the Republican Guard were killed - 160 tanks, 180 infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, as well as 12 artillery pieces. The coalition lost only one fighter from the crew of the reconnaissance "Bradley-M3" - it was hit by an Iraqi BMP-1 shell.
Author:
94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. antivirus
    antivirus 29 September 2021 05: 33
    +1
    the causes and consequences of the war are described in a very original way.

    The "fighting efficiency" of the Iraqi army showed the possible failure of Iran - they fought and held back Hussein at the same level of skill and tactics ..
    Bush Sr. became the most peaceful American - he did not enter Tehran.

    sights for 2.5 km - a small thing before the decision to release the war on the brakes, Hussein succeeded. shared the oil. not even the territory, and the Shiites did not want to die, the Sunnis of Iraq also live.
    internal balances did not allow the army to die for someone else's oil.

    as in other local wars, Iraq (and its opponents) divided money in Western banks. the war was for the coverage of poker and bankers' desktops.

    apparently a reprint of Western propaganda, which is already good, there is an author, an article is signed.

    Scud flew to Tel Aviv. ... the war was not for Kuwait, but for the redistribution of BBV. did not support Hussein in the world with his change in proportions in the world fuel and energy complex.

    and lastly, about MSG and Shevardnadze ...
    - how weak we have become - said the father.
    - so what?
    -in 79, the Americans tried to get into Iran, to free the embassy, ​​but the elderly Brezhnev mumbled: we will not allow war on our borders and that's it, they fell silent, began to prepare secret operations
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 29 September 2021 13: 09
      +12
      What does the Soviet technique have to do with it? give the fool a glass ... phallus, he will cut his hands and break the phallus ...
      1. sanja.grw
        sanja.grw 29 September 2021 19: 54
        +2
        give the fool a glass ... phallus, he will cut his hands and break the phallus ...

        As you delicately said
      2. Vol4ara
        Vol4ara 30 September 2021 22: 16
        +2
        Quote: Dead Day
        What does the Soviet technique have to do with it? give the fool a glass ... phallus, he will cut his hands and break the phallus ...

        Given that you have voiced a typical excuse. It turns out that the union sold equipment exclusively to dealers, and the States exclusively to professionals
        1. Illanatol
          Illanatol 8 October 2021 09: 07
          +4
          Given that you have voiced a typical excuse. It turns out that the union sold equipment exclusively to dealers, and the States exclusively to professionals


          The states sold their equipment to Kuwait. How long did the Kuwaiti army hold out there when Saddam decided to occupy Kuwait?
          The Saudis bought "Abrams" in the most top-end configuration. Did these "professionals" successfully fight the Houthis in Yemen?
          Did the "Abrams" of the armies of "de-democratized" Iraq and Afghanistan win many victories in the battles with the Islamists?
        2. Sanichsan
          Sanichsan 14 October 2021 21: 43
          0
          Quote: Vol4ara
          It turns out that the union sold equipment exclusively to dealers, and the States exclusively to professionals

          why? The Vietnamese overtook an even larger group of the United States, but the Arabs were not very good. and Iraq (which, by the way, not only had Soviet weapons), and Egypt distinguished itself ...
  2. parusnik
    parusnik 29 September 2021 06: 08
    +1
    The author's talent is multifaceted. smile
  3. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 29 September 2021 06: 11
    +3
    I wonder how things are on our T-90s with thermal imaging cameras?
    1. Old tanker
      Old tanker 29 September 2021 07: 03
      +9
      Badly. Except for the T-90M modification.
  4. Cool but not Igor
    Cool but not Igor 29 September 2021 06: 30
    0
    Therefore, the training of soldiers is very important, but it is even more important to have technically not inferior equipment, and today everything is bad with us.
  5. Olgovich
    Olgovich 29 September 2021 06: 41
    +2
    Hussein went too far, became a star and fell for the American wiring and paid.

    In military terms, I don't think he had any chances in the desert, his forces were too incomparable ...
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 29 September 2021 13: 13
      +3
      Quote: Olgovich
      Hussein went too far, became a star and fell for the American wiring and paid.

      people began to live too well ...
    2. max702
      max702 10 October 2021 11: 36
      0
      Hussein as a sucker was thrown by the United States about this even in the text it says, he asked their permission and attacked due to the fact that he should have been to the United States and other things. And he went to Kuwait for money, and he was sent with these pennies and devoured entirely .. So all the mess of the United States and his comrades all this in and organized.
  6. Lepsik
    Lepsik 29 September 2021 07: 03
    -5
    During the first campaign against Iraq, they fought against Iraq on the M-84 (a modernized model of the T-72M tank, made under a Soviet license in Yugoslavia). These tanks (200 pieces) were purchased by Kuwait in 1989 from Yugoslavia and they took an active part in the war (some sources indicate that they were ahead of the Abrams, which would be logical).

    I'm wondering if the T-72s shot each other, and their fragments are clearly lying around for public viewing, the victory was attributed to the "Abrams" or was it honestly indicated that they were shot down from 72-oks?

    52 tanks, 62 armored personnel carriers and tractors, 7 aircraft. These are the US losses in Operation Desert Storm.

    By the way, 12 of their tanks were destroyed by US artillery by mistake.

    They got lost in the night and came out to the American positions from the Iraqi positions, which the Iraqis left at nightfall, retreating to the spare.

    The impermissibly large gap between the armor of the hull and the turret of the “Abrams” is so great that it is possible to get under the turret even at a great distance. To do this, you can aim at the upper frontal sheet located at a very large angle - if a ricochet occurs, then be sure to under the tower. In this case, neither the high armor of the frontal part of the hull, nor the thick armor of the turret will help. Poor side armor in the area of ​​the engine-transmission and fighting compartment makes the tank vulnerable to small-caliber artillery fire.

    "Excellent tank Abrams. The main thing is high-tech.
    Instead of an automatic loader, he has a black jock, who throws shots into the breech. Historically, missile firing is not provided for in it.
    And it looks impressive. The tower is the size of a garden house. The engine is great. Almost like the T80 - only better. The temperature of the outgoing gases is such that the IR GOS sees it from space.

    The issue of insufficient power of the main engine for twisting a garden house with a cannon has been correctly resolved. An additional diesel engine is attached to the turret.
    So they usually strive to shoot him with a machine gun, which inevitably leads to the complete burnout of the entire tank. "

    The thickness of the side in the MTO area at Abrams is 30 mm, and the thickness of the lower hull sheet in the aft section is 12,5 mm. For the T-34, these thicknesses are 40 mm.
    1. parma
      parma 29 September 2021 09: 36
      +22
      I love sofa experts ...
      Quote: Lepsik
      During the first campaign against Iraq, they fought against Iraq on the M-84 (a modernized model of the T-72M tank, made under a Soviet license in Yugoslavia). These tanks (200 pieces) were purchased by Kuwait in 1989 from Yugoslavia and they took an active part in the war (some sources indicate that they were ahead of the Abrams, which would be logical).

      I'm wondering if the T-72s shot each other, and their fragments are clearly lying around for public viewing, the victory was attributed to the "Abrams" or was it honestly indicated that they were shot down from 72-oks?

      Before the Iraqi aggression, as many as four M-84s were shipped to Kuwait ... then, of course, during the storm they brought more, but there were no trained crews and the tanks were not used ...
      And in general, it is very logical to send tanks ahead of their forces that are visually indistinguishable (in sight) from enemy tanks, so that the pilots of the aircraft and the gunners will nip themselves more counters of broken equipment ...
      Quote: Lepsik
      The impermissibly large gap between the armor of the hull and the turret of the “Abrams” is so great that it is possible to get under the turret even at a great distance. To do this, you can aim at the upper frontal sheet located at a very large angle - if a ricochet occurs, then be sure to under the tower. In this case, neither the high armor of the frontal part of the hull, nor the thick armor of the turret will help. Poor side armor in the area of ​​the engine-transmission and fighting compartment makes the tank vulnerable to small-caliber artillery fire.

      And you are apparently a veteran tanker who knocked out hundreds of tanks in a computer in one battle ... especially considering the superiority of the Abrams over the export T-72 (and over the Soviet non-export ones) in terms of fire detection and control)))
      Quote: Lepsik
      Excellent tank Abrams. The main thing is high-tech.
      Instead of an automatic loader, he has a black jock, who throws shots into the breech. Historically, missile firing is not provided for in it.
      And it looks impressive. The tower is the size of a garden house. The engine is great. Almost like the T80 - only better. The temperature of the outgoing gases is such that the IR GOS sees it from space.

      1) an experienced loader for a short time (up to 10 shots) can provide a GREAT rate of fire (in reality, this is not particularly necessary) than a machine gun
      2) an additional crew member facilitates its operation (for example, repairs in the field by the crew)
      3) the absence of a "garland" of shells in the turret increases the chances of surviving a hit
      4) T-72 until 1985 was also not friends with ATGM in the bk form
      5) a tank ATGM only in theory gives superiority on an ideally open and flat surface at a distance of more than 3-4 km (the gunner tank is stationary while the rocket is flying, this is life in motion, the ATGM speed is lower than that of the BOPS and there is a considerable chance of getting a "crowbar" before the missile reaches, the modern tendency to hang up KAZ casts doubt on the real effectiveness of missile weapons, etc.)
      Quote: Lepsik
      The issue of insufficient power of the main engine for twisting a garden house with a cannon has been correctly resolved. An additional diesel engine is attached to the turret.
      So they usually strive to shoot him with a machine gun, which inevitably leads to the complete burnout of the entire tank. "

      And I thought that this generator was invented so as not to consume the resource of the main engine (which changes easier and faster than those on the T72) during a long stay of the tank, but it is indicated that ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 29 September 2021 16: 42
      0
      Quote: Lepsik
      The issue of insufficient power of the main engine for twisting a garden house with a cannon has been correctly resolved. An additional diesel engine is attached to the turret.
      So they usually strive to shoot him with a machine gun, which inevitably leads to the complete burnout of the entire tank.

      You might think that we did not have a similar problem - on the T-80 with a "third barrel". smile
    3. Alexander Trebuntsev
      Alexander Trebuntsev 29 September 2021 18: 02
      +5
      There are published data that describe all the cases of the defeat of the Abrams in Iraq. There are many of them. One of the cases is generally funny. Behind Abrams, the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle was beating from its cannon in all directions and hit the tank several times. As a result, the tank turret exploded. As it was later established, the BMP hit from behind exactly this additional engine on the turret, behind which there is almost no armor in the turret. Knock-out panels worked, but the fate of the crew did not seem to be reported.
  7. Niko
    Niko 29 September 2021 07: 09
    +10
    Quote: Olgovich
    Hussein went too far, became a star and fell for the American wiring and paid.

    In military terms, I don't think he had any chances in the desert, his forces were too incomparable ...

    This is true, but what a DEATH to zero was smashed in spite of any patriotic songs
    1. Eroma
      Eroma 9 October 2021 19: 34
      +1
      Desert Storm is a triumph for military technology! The difference in the military-technical level of the rivals is simply not comparable! And worse or better training does not compensate for this difference. This is known today, and at that time few people guessed about it, the United States understood its superiority and were confident of victory, but did not know how many times they were more powerful than Iraq, so they caught up with the personnel, being reinsured many times! In the second Gulf War, they cost $ 100. bully Iraq understood that it would lose, but did not understand how much weaker it was. The result, I think, shocked everyone: 100 hours for battles and 365 people who died seems to be from the MNF and the complete defeat of the 400 thousandth army.wassat
      Military innovation in weapons and tactics is the key to a quick victory, otherwise only the presence of large resources allows you to defeat the enemy.
      In the First World War, the military technical level and the level of training were the same among the opponents, so a positional deadlock occurred, it was overcome by an innovation in the form of tanks.
      In World War II, Germany developed the Blitzkrieg tactics and only the USSR, who managed to master this tactic, was able to defeat Germany using the advantage in resources.
      In the fight against the USSR, the United States relied on technical superiority and Desert Storm is a demonstration of the capabilities of technology.

      If Iraq was equal in military-technical terms to the United States, there would be no such article, but there would be an article on tactics and possibly heroism in the liberation of Kuveta, and perhaps there would be no war lol but there would be some kind of agreement beneficial to the United States laughing
  8. Maaslo Sallonen
    Maaslo Sallonen 29 September 2021 07: 24
    +5
    And everything would be true, but in truth the US attacked Hussein's army when it was on the march, leaving Kuwait, along a convoy stretched for many kilometers, without combat escort. The withdrawal of troops was at the request of the United States. And is this a fight? This is annihilation. All the rest was suppression of the centers of resistance. What is this translation from the American press?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 29 September 2021 10: 17
      -4
      The blow described in the article took place before the withdrawal of troops.
      The withdrawal was not agreed with the United States, and Iraq did not surrender at this point. It was just a strategic retreat to avoid encirclement. The troops simply fled from the emerging cauldron.
  9. Maaslo Sallonen
    Maaslo Sallonen 29 September 2021 07: 26
    -3
    And how was it really? So the comments are removed. Who rules there?
  10. Maaslo Sallonen
    Maaslo Sallonen 29 September 2021 07: 27
    +2
    Which American edition is the translation from?
    1. kig
      kig 30 September 2021 04: 47
      +4
      For example, from here:
      https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/battle-of-73-easting.html

      The same photos, and the description is generally the same.
  11. barium
    barium 29 September 2021 07: 42
    +4
    the Arabs were never warriors !!!! crowd for one - yes.
    1. samosad
      samosad 29 September 2021 08: 14
      .
      That's for sure. And Muslims in general, perhaps except for our Caucasians ... and those were always beaten when the operations were thought out to the smallest detail. Starting with the Caucasian War of the 19th century and ending with the last decades. And all sorts of Turks, Persians ... yes - trash.
      1. Prisoner
        Prisoner 29 September 2021 08: 56
        +17
        A great human "merci", for such an assessment of the military abilities of Muslims. Tatars (General of the Army M.A.Gareev, highly respected in the USSR Armed Forces and the RF Armed Forces), to whom I belong by blood and spirit, Bashkirs (twice Hero of the Soviet Union, ground attack pilot M.G. Gareev), Uzbeks, Kazakhs (Hero of the Soviet Union and Hero of the Russian Federation, helicopter pilot N. S. Maidanov), etc. Muslims actually. In order to have the moral right to judge the military abilities of people, one must shoulder to shoulder with them, if not fight, then at least take part in real clashes.
        1. Alexander Trebuntsev
          Alexander Trebuntsev 29 September 2021 18: 04
          +4
          As far as I remember, the Kazan Tatars take first place in the number of Heroes of the Soviet Union per capita who fought in the Great Patriotic War. Only then did the Russians.
          1. Prisoner
            Prisoner 29 September 2021 20: 02
            +3
            It doesn't matter. All were Soviet people, all were heroes of their country.
          2. samosad
            samosad 1 October 2021 12: 06
            +2
            1. Russian - 8160,
            2. Ukrainians - 2089,
            3. Belarusians - 309,
            4. Tatars - 161,
            5. Jews - 108,
            6. Kazakhs - 96,
            etc.
        2. Aviator_
          Aviator_ 29 September 2021 22: 00
          +9
          All of the people you and I have mentioned are Soviet soldiers, not Muslims. How many times did they perform namaz during the fighting? They fought as atheists, like the Slavic warriors, whose exploits are now trying to privatize the ROC. I recently made fun of Professor Mirgazov (we are working together) - I asked him what trend of Islam in Tatarstan is Sunnism or Shiism? - so he could not answer anything, since it is out of his interests, he is an aerodynamicist.
        3. dnestr74
          dnestr74 1 October 2021 07: 31
          +3
          They were people from the USSR
          1. Prisoner
            Prisoner 1 October 2021 07: 34
            +1
            It's true. So where are we from.
        4. samosad
          samosad 1 October 2021 11: 59
          +1
          Sorry, my fault. I think that it should be clarified that the only place where Muslims revealed their abilities was fighting side by side with the Russians! Be it the times of the Republic of Ingushetia, or the USSR, the Russian Federation.
        5. samosad
          samosad 1 October 2021 12: 09
          0
          I meant their ability in the context of the war with the Russians. It is understandable not only with ethnic Russians, but in the broader sense of the word.
      2. svoroponov
        svoroponov 29 September 2021 16: 56
        +10
        He served in the Caucasus. One on one they are cowardly, and when their crowd, they are brave. And even then they immediately grab knives or weapons, if even one gives them a worthy rebuff during a fight.
    2. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 29 September 2021 09: 35
      +13
      Quote: barium
      the Arabs were never warriors !!!! crowd for one - yes.

      The Jordanians have always been good wars, and as for the Arabs, they stopped their medieval expansion somewhere in the center of France, and even then, because of the internal discord among the Arabs themselves.
      1. Bolt cutter
        Bolt cutter 29 September 2021 19: 33
        +3
        about the Arabs
        If they had fought well, then the first Arab-Israeli would have been the last, for superiority in weapons and manpower was on their side. And geography too.
        due to internal discord among the Arabs themselves
        Paris was not divided laughing ? This is how Karl Martell (Saxon) overtook them.
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 29 September 2021 21: 46
          -1
          Just the first Arab-Israeli war was won thanks to the numerical superiority of the Jews))
          No, most of them flooded to plunder the wagon train, because: they did not agree on a share in the division of property, the conscious remnants of the army received not those with hair at Poitiers from the superior forces of the enemy. Having plundered, the less conscious part noticed that Christians were advancing, and their own were fleeing, so they decided to keep the acquisitions and prudently dumped)))
          1. martin-159
            martin-159 30 September 2021 15: 33
            0
            If the war is Arab-Israeli, what have the Christians to do with it?
            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 30 September 2021 21: 06
              -1
              This I answered about Poitiers - the victory of Christians over the Arabs in France in the Middle Ages.
      2. samosad
        samosad 1 October 2021 16: 11
        0
        So maybe it's not the Jordanians, but the Europeans?
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 1 October 2021 16: 26
          -1
          Jordanians are Arab-Israeli wars)))))
    3. Usher
      Usher 30 September 2021 00: 39
      -1
      Iraqis are not Arabs)
      1. samosad
        samosad 1 October 2021 16: 13
        +1
        The two largest ethno-religious groups in Iraq are Sunni Arabs and Shiites.
      2. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 1 October 2021 16: 27
        -1
        ???????
        Iranians are not Arabs. Iraqis - yes.
  12. barium
    barium 29 September 2021 07: 49
    -5
    why was my comment removed? Have you sat down in the editorial office?
  13. Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 29 September 2021 09: 33
    +9
    A few days before the Iraqi aggression, US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie assured Hussein that the Americans would not interfere in the showdown with Kuwait.
    She did not assure anything - she was asked "how would the United States react to the seizure of Kuwait?" She said, like it's your business. It was about a private conversation, there were no serious negotiations like “ask the president” with the expectation of an answer and there was no bargaining.
  14. nonsense
    nonsense 29 September 2021 14: 09
    +15
    wassat funny ... The author completely believed in American sources of information. Although why would? - The entire history of the United States is a history of lies! And he took the name, militant ... "The Abrams are winning!" :) But the truth of life is this:
    1. "Abrams" only hindered advancing American troops. If they were not part of the MNF, the advancement would have been much faster. With their gas turbine engines in the Iraqi desert, they broke down almost daily due to engine wear.
    2. At the same time, in reality, "Abrams" practically did not participate in episodic battles - all their firepower fell on abandoned Iraqi tanks ... By the way, for three thousand Iraqi tanks in such conditions of the shooting gallery, brave American tankers managed to spend 40 thousand M829 BOPS! Where the Iraqi tank fired, either they called in the aviation, or they shot it with Tou ATGMs with BMPs ... They also spent those ATGMs many times more than Saddam's tanks existed by the beginning of the war ...
    3. “Abrams” had nothing to do with victory at all. All the work was done by aviation, which plowed the Iraqi battle formations to the full depth for 40 days. By this, they achieved a complete cessation of logistical support (the supply of fuel, water, food, spare parts and ammunition), as well as the complete destruction of control (communication centers and headquarters) in the Iraqi troops.
    4. All these tales about oh ... what great night vision devices and thermal sights on amerskie tanks, they are tales (read = military-industrial complex advertising) and are. EMNIP, the same helicopter pilots on the Apaches complained strongly about the almost impossibility of working with these thermal imagers in a heated desert. And on the tanks were devices exactly the same and even "thinner".
    5. Well, all the photos from the Gulf of 1991 with "defragmented" Iraqi T-72s show the work of American sappers who blew up abandoned armored vehicles, not American tankers ...
    In such a context.
    1. svoroponov
      svoroponov 29 September 2021 17: 05
      +1
      Yes, it's all true, it was.
      Where they fought back, it was difficult for the Americans. There was a case when 4
      f-15 attacked the Iraqi MiG-25 R, he dodged the missiles and started a fight (sorry for the missiles he did not have). So they did not, but he drove them for about half an hour. With a small amount of fuel left, he got out of the battle, only then he was able to shoot down, pulling up a couple more fresh sides.
      And you can't trust the Americans. In Yugoslavia, they stated that the coalition had lost only a little more than 20 aircraft aircraft, and in fact 100 with a small tail. So the army was bombed, bombed that there were practically no losses for the army.
      They fought with civilians and not with the army.
  15. Seamaster
    Seamaster 29 September 2021 15: 25
    +1
    Before launching a ground offensive, coalition aircraft bombed Iraqi forces on the front lines with virtually impunity. WITHIN A MONTH! In what moral and physical condition the Iraqi soldiers were at the beginning of the offensive - it is not difficult to imagine. Remember what happened in 1941 and how our entire divisions got upset after the attacks of the "shtukas". And then - a month under the bombs! Create the opposite situation and imagine on what day of the bombing the American soldiers would begin to surrender?
  16. Petio
    Petio 29 September 2021 15: 26
    +6
    It is logical. Iraqi BOPS could penetrate the armor of the m-60 and the first Abrams without uranium armor and could not even penetrate the forehead of the m-1000NA with uranium at 1 m. Of course, they punched into the board, but the Americans did not substitute the boards. This is the same if in 1943 T-34-76 with Panthers in the forehead were fired on on a smooth field. The result beat bi is the same. Which does not mean that 34-76 hit with a bad tank.
    1. Bradley
      Bradley 29 September 2021 19: 58
      0
      That's right, before the HA version, the Iraqis could punch the Abrams. And there were both M1 and M60, but for some reason the Iraqi could not.
      And they could not even with the M60 KMP. Crew training rules. Although the Tavalkalna division was experienced and fired upon, but still ...
  17. nov_tech.vrn
    nov_tech.vrn 29 September 2021 21: 31
    +1
    the main striking force of the coalition was money, and they dealt an instant and decisive blow
  18. Nord11
    Nord11 29 September 2021 23: 15
    -1
    Such a resounding success was the result of the good work of the American intelligence services. They outright outbid the fathers-commanders of the Iraqi army, promising them and their families heaven on earth overseas. So the centers of resistance were poorly motivated and well demoralized, which is a guarantee of defeat with any technique.
  19. zenion
    zenion 29 September 2021 23: 50
    -3
    In 1991, the USSR, as such, did not exist. There was a country that was mostly slave with a feudal bias, and so it remained. Who will fight with the slaves. Thousands of years ago, no one wanted to fight Spartak, it was beneath conscience. So no one wants to fight with Bardak.
  20. Usher
    Usher 30 September 2021 00: 41
    0
    Such tales) What a wonder. Where did you come from? You copy and paste some articles of the 90s here)
  21. Borisych
    Borisych 30 September 2021 07: 10
    +6
    Why translate this propaganda American nonsense The Battle of 73 Easting: The Last Great Tank Battle Of The 20th Century? While one thing is true, Iraqi tanks were firing at long range. Only there were no crews in these tanks; they all fled during the coalition's air strikes.
  22. tank64rus
    tank64rus 30 September 2021 10: 51
    +3
    American winning record from the 90s. I remembered once reading all this in the 90s. After that, a wave of criticism fell on the T-72. They especially relished the destruction of the towers during the explosion of B.K. And how "Abrams" was promoted. Years passed and it turned out that when placed in the stacking high-explosive shells, the Abrams tower flies no worse than the T-72. Well, how much the Americans have lost over the years from the RPG-7 is a separate story.
  23. Isstvan
    Isstvan 30 September 2021 12: 06
    -2
    The coalition lost only one soldier from the crew of the reconnaissance "Bradley-M3" - it was hit by an Iraqi BMP-1 shell.
  24. Wildcat
    Wildcat 30 September 2021 12: 42
    0
    On the one hand, the author has made a compilation of well-known materials in Russian (which are mostly translated from English, ie the point of view of the "coalition ..."). And there are no other materials, the Iraqis had no time for memories. In general, thanks to the author for that too. Unpopular topic.

    On the other hand, 80% of the comments on the article - "everything was wrong", "PR", "Arabs are not warriors" and other nonsense. Nobody wants to learn, even from defeat.
    Here's my favorite of these discussions:
    "Quote: ccsr
    Quote: voyaka uh
    And the Merkava-4's trump card is accurate shooting during the day and especially at night from 2.5 - 3 km.

    At this distance, if the projectile is not controlled by the ATGM type, at best you will hit by accident, and it is not a fact that you will hit the enemy's tank, even hitting it.
    So be careful with such statements - in a combat situation, we use other distances.
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Russian tanks have 1 km less.

    Russian standards are closer to combat ones, which is why developers are very careful in assessing the characteristics of their products, and do not promote them like Israelis. In general, as one tanker said, a rather large chief, only fools will begin to open fire in an oncoming battle from a distance of more than one kilometer, even now with all systems that increase the accuracy of fire."
    No matter how I stalinize even once, but it is here, exactly 80% of them want to send to Stalin for preventive conversations.

    Again, well, at least under Putin, the problems were assessed. That is, 20% are not engaged in chatting on the Internet. A movement began in the direction of "removing ammunition and fuel from the crew," friendship with Thales (sights) began, and at least they took care of the issues of "network-centric war" - Armata appeared. Although my personal IMHO, that this issue had to be resolved even after 1973, and it would be better to have a version of the "Russian Merkava" (in principle, in the post-war period there was such a model) or if the "cheap-cheerful" version based on the T90 with a gun loading and aft niche under the BC ("Russian Leclerc").
  25. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 30 September 2021 17: 33
    -1
    An important advantage of Western armored vehicles were perfect guidance and night vision devices. Through thermal imagers, NATO members saw T-72, T-62 and T-55 at a distance of up to 2,5 km

    Here I cannot help but recall that night vision devices appeared in Hitler's Germany in 1943, from where we undoubtedly took out a huge amount of documentation and samples both for them and for guidance devices corresponding to the best world standards already then. To find out that in 1991 these "miracles" were not on Soviet technology after almost half a century is at least surprising. No, of course, Saddam could have been supplied with some specific configurations, but it's still rather strange, given the absolutely horse supplies to Iraq from our military industry back in the Soviet period.
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 8 October 2021 16: 10
      0
      We ourselves had T-72s on sighting devices at the bottom level. Whatever they write about the Iraqis.
  26. Ros 56
    Ros 56 30 September 2021 18: 56
    +1
    Fantasy. And if the sides changed technique, what would be the result? For me, it would not have changed much.
  27. Operator
    Operator 30 September 2021 22: 51
    -4
    The Iraqi army was armed with absolutely the same armored vehicles as the Soviet one in 1991 - taking into account the huge stock of 60 thousand SA tanks, which included all previously released T-55 and T-62 (minus those supplied for export).

    "Abrams" in a conventional war would have rolled Soviet tank troops to zero - short-sighted Soviet optics (especially night), the complete absence of ballistic computers on Soviet tanks (with the exception of a relatively small number of T-64, T-72 and T-80), scanty the armor penetration of the Soviet BOPS separate loading and the Soviet cardboard armor (in comparison with the Abrams) put the Soviet tank crews of the 1991 model in the position of their predecessors, the 1943 model.

    "Thanks" to the secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR Minister of Defense Ustinov, who brought the Soviet tank industry to the handle by simultaneously releasing three MBTs (T-6, T-64 and T-72).
    1. samosad
      samosad 1 October 2021 16: 30
      -2
      Funny. Abramsi would not have been rolled out by Soviet tanks, because the training of Soviet tankers was much better, especially if you take Dzerdinsky's division (the same etite Iraqi, in the Soviet manner ...), plus not all of our tankers would leave the tanks like that, well, plus the work of our aviation).
    2. Illanatol
      Illanatol 7 October 2021 14: 17
      0
      How many T-80s did the Iraqis have?
      Relatively small number of T-64, T-72 and T-80 - how much?
      Go a little more than the "Abrams" together with the "Challengers" into the bargain smile
      Scanty armor penetration - what kind of ammunition? Those that were delivered to Iraq or who were in the SA ?. By the way, I'm not sure that the information about them in open sources is true.
      A war between NATO and the ATS would be in Europe, where the landscape is different than in Iraq. The Abrams were hardly able to realize their superiority at long distances. And how the Western tanks would have led in the conditions of our mud and muddy roads is still a question.
      Even after the Iraqi victories, the Abrams demanded urgent modernization, the engines turned out to be capricious.
      1. Operator
        Operator 7 October 2021 21: 28
        -2
        Domestic BOPS lagged behind the western ones forever: since the first are short (included in separate loading shots), and the second are long (included in unitary shots).
        The longer the BOPS, the greater the armor penetration.
        1. Illanatol
          Illanatol 8 October 2021 09: 18
          0
          Nevertheless, the armor penetration of the BOPS is determined not only by the length.
          Long lengths are pretty heavy, you know. Even the healthiest Negro loader will get tired of sticking such "bananas".
          In addition to BOPS, there are other methods of destruction: shaped-charge projectiles, guided missiles (which can be fired through the barrel).
          Fed up with these tales of "invulnerable abrams" (leopards, merkavs, etc.). Any tank can be knocked out if you fight competently. The experience of hostilities in Syria and Yemen has shown this clearly.
          1. mmaxx
            mmaxx 8 October 2021 16: 18
            -1
            And you can ask: how many BPSs should the loader put on to get tired? Considering that everything is calculated to hit the target with the first shot, maximum with the second.
            1. Illanatol
              Illanatol 9 October 2021 14: 46
              0
              Very little, I suspect. Especially if the tank moves over rough terrain, and the loader's nerves are not iron.
              A tank battle is not always a one-on-one duel.
              Still, an automatic loader is preferable. Doesn't get tired, doesn't freak out, doesn't make mistakes.
              1. mmaxx
                mmaxx 9 October 2021 20: 37
                0
                The charging nerves should not be. What does he see there? There are videos. Submits what they say, and no emotion is visible. To send one or two, well, three, shells to beat someone, you do not need a lot of mind. Automatic loader function.
                1. Illanatol
                  Illanatol 10 October 2021 08: 19
                  0
                  Mutants, however. smile Or completely true Aryans with a Nordic character.
                  There are different videos. If you shoot at the range - everything is in order.
                  In general, I am in favor of reducing the crew to 2 people. One is behind the steering wheel, the other is firing.
                  And the increase in the crew is a clear drawback. More interior space is needed, more mass and size of the tank, problems begin with cross-country ability (not everywhere dense sand, yeah), not every bridge will withstand, etc. etc.
                  Our tanks have a resource for increasing the mass and dimensions, and Western tanks (not only Abrams) have exhausted their resource, have come to the limit.

                  It would be nice to give statistics. At least for Iraq. How many shots were actually fired by the Abrams and how many Iraqi tanks were destroyed. Let's close our eyes to the fact that most of them were old T-55 and T-62, sometimes made in China.
                  It would be nice if this were the data of independent observers, and not of the Pentagon agitprop. Only where to get such. The Pentagon then imposed the strictest censorship on combat coverage. What for? If the superiority of the coalition is so obvious and everything went in the best way?
                  I suspect, according to American data, the Yankees destroyed more Iraqi T-72s than Iraq acquired them. The fact that part of the T-72 (it is not known exactly how much) was lost in the Iran-Iraq conflict, and part of it went into circulation due to wear (wear in the local conditions is fast) also needs to be taken into account. Or ignore it if you don't want to spoil the painting with oil.
                  1. mmaxx
                    mmaxx 10 October 2021 08: 40
                    0
                    I would not like to change the harp together or even wash the tank. 3 people is just an operating minimum.
          2. Operator
            Operator 8 October 2021 18: 24
            -3
            At the moment, the penetration of BOPS is determined only by their length, since according to other indicators (projectile material, initial velocity), we and the United States are going head-to-head.
            1. Illanatol
              Illanatol 9 October 2021 14: 40
              -1
              Presently? And then?
              As far as I know, the initial speed of our BOPS was then higher than that of Western counterparts.
              Another thing is that modern (at that time BOPS) were not supplied to Iraq, the Iraqis used shells removed from the armament of the SA back in the 70s.
              The penetration of the BOPS is determined by the kinetic energy and strength characteristics of the core. Kinetic energy - explosive power. The simplest and most obvious way to increase the explosive power is to increase its content. More gunpowder - more powerful shot, obviously.
              For separate ammunition, this is easier to do than for unitary ammunition. You can improve only a part, not a whole shell.
              In addition, a longer core in a unitary one takes up a larger volume, therefore, there is less space for the explosive.
              In general, I consider separate loading ammunition to be more promising and rational, with greater flexibility in use.
              I'm not sure that the armor penetration tables available in the public domain correspond to the truth, so it's difficult to judge objectively.
              And the cost of BOPS also matters. You can create ammunition with record characteristics, but what good is it if it gets into the troops in small quantities due to the prohibitive price?
              In short, we do not know the real state of affairs, I think it is unreasonable to be guided by the information in the "murzilki", making hasty conclusions (lagging behind forever).
              1. Operator
                Operator 9 October 2021 16: 37
                0
                In the process of piercing the armor, the BOPS core (a rod with a length of 70-90 cm and a diameter of 25-30 mm made of tungsten or uranium alloys) reduces its length to 20 cm. The longer the BOPS rod is initially, the thicker the armor it penetrates.
                Due to the shorter length of the domestic BOPS for separate loading (by 20 cm), it accordingly lags behind the unitary American, German and Israeli in terms of penetration.
                It will not work to increase the length of the domestic BOPS, since it is limited by the vertical dimensions of the T-72, T-80 and T-90 carousel automatic loaders.
                It is also impossible to disperse the domestic BOPS in the barrel faster than the foreign one, since the initial velocity of the projectile (maximum pressure in the barrel) is limited by the modern level of metallurgy and metalworking of the barrel steel
                She is materiel and materiel in Africa.
                1. Illanatol
                  Illanatol 10 October 2021 07: 15
                  +1
                  It is also impossible to disperse the domestic BOPS in the barrel faster than the foreign one, since the initial velocity of the projectile (maximum pressure in the barrel) is limited by the modern level of metallurgy and metalworking of the barrel steel


                  At the same maximum pressure (determined by the energy of combustion of gunpowder) in the barrel, a shorter and lighter (tungsten carbide is lighter than uranium-238, by the way) projectile will acquire a higher initial velocity in accordance with the kinetic energy formula.
                  There is no reason to believe that both then and now the armor penetration of our modern (at the current moment) subcaliber is insufficient. The criterion of truth, as you know, is practice, but it simply did not exist.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 10 October 2021 13: 07
                    +1
                    The mass of domestic and Western BOPS is practically the same due to the larger diameter of the former.
                    Practice in peacetime is being developed at research sites, of course.
                    1. Illanatol
                      Illanatol 10 October 2021 14: 20
                      0
                      The larger diameter, alas, is rather a disadvantage. Not the best solution. After all, armor penetration is higher when the impact is concentrated on a smaller area of ​​contact with the armor. Actually, this is the essence of sub-caliber projectiles.
                      So betting on increasing the initial speed, in my opinion, is more promising for an amateur. Even if this increases wear and tear and shortens the life of the implement. We can afford such a thing, everything is cheaper here - both the tanks themselves and their guns. And even in war conditions, a resource does not mean much at all.
                      Polygons-polygons, war is a more mature and objective judge.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 10 October 2021 15: 17
                        -1
                        To increase the initial speed of the BOPS, it is necessary to lengthen the barrel of the gun, after which the tank will begin to plow the earth with it.
                        The prospect is for guided ARSs, which, with the help of a rocket engine, are accelerated to high speed after the projectile has left the barrel.
                        But here we also have a bummer - in solid-state electronics (withstanding acceleration when fired), as always, a lag, and uncontrolled ARSs have an accuracy of plus or minus bast shoes.
                      2. Illanatol
                        Illanatol 11 October 2021 10: 01
                        0
                        To increase the initial speed of the BOPS, it is necessary to lengthen the barrel of the gun, after which the tank will begin to plow the earth with it.


                        Not necessary. With an explosive charge of equal power, a lighter shorter projectile will receive a higher muzzle velocity than a heavier long one.
                        And the charge can be increased, or a more energy efficient explosive can be developed.
                        This will lead to increased wear on the bore ... but I have already commented on this.

                        The prospect is for guided ARSs, which, with the help of a rocket engine, are accelerated to high speed after the projectile has left the barrel.


                        Perhaps. But so far this is not so relevant.
                        Because in the "armor-shell" competition, in fact, the shell has already gained the upper hand. Modern ammunition (not necessarily BOPS) is capable of hitting any tank (again, not necessarily in a frontal projection). The reserves for building up armor and improving it (searching for more optimal combinations of composite armor materials) have been exhausted for most tanks (domestic ones are an exception). Yet modern engineers did not quite go cuckoo to develop new "maus".
                        Let us turn to the experience of those who test their armored vehicles not only at training grounds - the Israelis. Their "merkavas" of the latest modification in terms of booking will even give a head start to the Abrams. Opponents of the Israelis have outdated weapons, as a rule. It would seem that Jews do not need to worry. But they are worried. After all, the Israelis are among the world leaders in the development of unconventional means of protection - KAZ. So it is believed (hardly without reason) that even such thick armor is not enough for their tanks.
                        It was the loss of armor to shells that gave rise to the development of expensive and complex active defense systems in many "tank" powers.

                        I don't think ARSs will ever completely replace conventional shells. They have their own shortcomings - any "smart" weapon can be deceived (electronic warfare, etc.). And an unguided projectile, like an ordinary bullet, is a fool. You can't fool a fool.

                        Okay, back to the topic of the article. "The Abrams are winning ..."
                        Who wondered who got the fruits of their victory?
                        To the Americans?
                        Yes, but not only to them.
                        Iran is among the winners. Iraq was its counterweight, a deterrent. The Yankees destroyed this deterrent on their own, strengthening Iran's position in the region.
                        It is time for the Iranian leadership to erect a monument to the "victorious Abrams" in the center of Tehran, who have worked so gloriously for Iranian interests.
                        Such a squiggle.
                      3. Operator
                        Operator 11 October 2021 11: 43
                        0
                        A cannon shot works like this: if you increase the charge, lengthen the barrel, otherwise all the "steam" (powder gases) will go into the "whistle" (into the exhaust).
  • mmaxx
    mmaxx 8 October 2021 16: 10
    -1
    100%. They will pass in vain.
  • Eroma
    Eroma 9 October 2021 20: 26
    0
    The first Abrams would have had problems with the T80, where the armor protection is significantly better than that of the T72. Soviet troops would not have suffered so much from NATO aviation, if it even got to the troops lol C300 and Tunguska, Buki and TORs were already kind of full in the troops, and this is in addition to all the old stuff like Shilka and C75, 125, 200 and arrows with wasps.
    In general, we are the best controlled by artillery, and the USSR had ATURIs no worse than NATO's, and assault and army aviation was a serious force.
    So the Soviet army could simply not notice the Abrams lol our Royal Tigers, like that at 45, did not pay attention
  • YOUR.
    YOUR. 1 October 2021 14: 36
    0
    It included up to 220 T-72 and T-72 tanks.

    This division was formed in Baden-Baden :)
  • teptyar
    teptyar 4 October 2021 10: 02
    -1
    minus, but this is another time when Soviet technology lost to Western one. Vietnam only. All the Arab-Israeli wars - and even directly our fighter pilots lost, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Karabakh .. And in all these stories, the defeat and it is characteristic that there are only isolated episodes, about the fact that, they say, some MIG drove the F15 or a separate calculation was able to shoot down the plane, etc.
    Recognizing the illness is the first step to healing.
    1. Illanatol
      Illanatol 8 October 2021 09: 32
      +5
      Lost in Korea too?
      Oh, these myths about the invariably victorious Israel. After the victory over Egypt, the defeated Sinai had to be returned. A strange victory, however.

      Yes, the United States and its allies can be proud of such victories. Such a small coalition with modest forces, having only 3-5 times superiority in the main types of weapons, overcame such huge powers as Iraq and the stub of Yugoslavia. You can still remember the victory over Grenada.

      What is undoubtedly the superiority of the West is in the propaganda lies. Skillfully rewrite history for themselves.
      1. teptyar
        teptyar 8 October 2021 09: 58
        -1
        not really about that. I'm talking about direct clashes, combat operations, not strategic victories. Losses in this case.
      2. mmaxx
        mmaxx 8 October 2021 16: 15
        0
        No matter how much we liked it, the Jews had to defend Israel and they defended it. That is, they achieved their goals in wars. Whether you rewrite or not rewrite it, it is a fact. And you can not give your own.
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 8 October 2021 16: 12
      -1
      I wonder what kind of Mig could "drive" the F-15?
      laughing laughing laughing
      I don't know a single Mig.
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 10 October 2021 08: 45
        +1
        Hurray-patriotic - a substantiated minus.
        So which Mig can fight the F-15? 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 of all stripes, 25, 27, 29, 31? But my opinion is only the Su-27 and its modifications. But even in this case, the term "drive" is not suitable.
  • komandir8
    komandir8 8 October 2021 18: 41
    0
    During Operation Desert Storm, where well-equipped, trained and trained American troops essentially put the entire war in a range of conditions.
  • KhatulMadan
    KhatulMadan 9 October 2021 23: 56
    -1
    Yes Yes! arbams and markavcha - the most, the most among other tank idiots! all the same, Lavrov was right! oyts right !!!