Well, if U.S. and Russia went to war in Iraq in 1991... a lot of Iraqi's would be confused and rather upset.

@andyboog2010

5 жыл бұрын

Lol. A big WTF!!

@patricksputnick5094

5 жыл бұрын

Which part is supposed to play the Saddams forces, and who plays the US-ledcoalition in this hypothethical scenario ?

@airborneranger-ret

5 жыл бұрын

lol

@patricksputnick5094

5 жыл бұрын

@@airborneranger-ret Well, isnt this about progressive larp-simulation ? :)

@neglesaks

5 жыл бұрын

"Well, if U.S. and Russia went to war in Iraq in 1991... a lot of Iraqi's would be confused and rather upset." Immigrants go home, we build wall!

Iraqis will be wondering why two foreign country are fighting on their land without pay.

@sjakierulez

3 жыл бұрын

Good job, you basically copied the top comment 3 months later

@Kalashnikov413

3 жыл бұрын

@@sjakierulez what's the problem? Comments didn't have any copyright claim or anything

@cherryperoxide

3 жыл бұрын

isn't that just syria

@bosbanon3452

2 жыл бұрын

Soviet Air Force was Present in Egypt and fought against Israel

@matsv201

Жыл бұрын

Well.. just join belgium and make a coalition.

90% of the comments are: ... the Gulf War isn't only about the tanks... It's a tank channel, not Binkov's battlegrounds!

@Alex-zg7vq

4 жыл бұрын

@Super Spurdo1234 abraham??

@simpleandawesomeanime3220

4 жыл бұрын

@@Alex-zg7vq lol

@generalkenobi5173

4 жыл бұрын

@Super Spurdo1234 woah Abraham

@generalkenobi5173

4 жыл бұрын

@@Alex-zg7vq new type of tank maybe?

@stabbergamer6604

4 жыл бұрын

Most of eqquioment in binkov,s are hopless, poor Awfal. WTF

Short Answer: More material for War Aeshetics

@Seanthefox

5 жыл бұрын

HOTTEST WAR

@TocTeplv

5 жыл бұрын

Nuke US? OKAY

@theroyalteabagyoutube4928

5 жыл бұрын

@Chev Chelios Coalition forces will suffer heavy losses from anti-air in this scenario. Another key weakness of Iraqis was their AA network. Russian AA network is legendary.

@sovietred7371

5 жыл бұрын

@Chev Chelios brainwashed much,the janks arnt invincible, more of a jackass attitude, they think they rule the world but nobody likea them

@johnmurphy5689

5 жыл бұрын

@Chev Chelios you forget the Mig-29,Su-27 and Mig-31 and that's not including the S-300 SAM and improved S-300s with Buk missiles and the 2K22 Tunguska

Not everyone know this but during the gulf war it was not just the M1 Abrams used as a MBT but also the M60. Obviously it was modernized and upgraded, but yeah it was also still used.

@MeGawOOt99

5 жыл бұрын

Problem people keep misunderstanding is the Iraqis were using export tanks, it was the same with Saudis using export M1 Abrams. Its technically not the same because to protect a country's technological edge, certain kits, armor plates and electronics are not sold to other countries.

@kingo1465

5 жыл бұрын

Factor in Challenger 1 as well......

@morteparla6926

5 жыл бұрын

@Denis Iraq had been at war for 40 years in Russian tanks, and winning most of those wars, by the time the US showed up. Iraqi tankers had 10x more experience than any Russian tanker has ever had in a modern Russian tank, and yet we kicked their fucking assess.

@black10872

5 жыл бұрын

Yes! That is true! The M-60 A3 Patton was deployed with the Marines and National Guard units. Regular Army units dropped the last upgraded M-60 Patton for Abrams in the mid to late 80's. Marines were using Patton tanks until 1995. Back then, both services officially retired the Pattons.

@ivanlazarevic78

5 жыл бұрын

@@morteparla6926 until you go to war with some first rate world power and prove your capabilities I consider your capability as non proven.Iraq didnt have first rate equipment and had been severely outnumbered in air.That alone decisevly decided outcome of Gulf war

Short answer: Everyone would be dead

@Tonius126

5 жыл бұрын

Via A-10 Bbrrttt.

@dmitrit.4862

5 жыл бұрын

RenegadeParagon The A-10 is only good against enemies without any noteworthy SAM. Even the old S-125 or S-200 are deadly for any A-10 out there. And these are only two types of SAM the Soviet Union and later Russia had.

@JeanLucCaptain

5 жыл бұрын

ww3

@johnmcdonald9304

5 жыл бұрын

Barais. No. A shit load of Russians would not only be dead but a shit load of Russians would have surrendred to Americans and they would have asked for asylum or they would have said they were defectors.

@JeanLucCaptain

5 жыл бұрын

@@johnmcdonald9304 American Troll detected.

The winner would probably be decided by who can gain air superiority. Tank vs Tank would probably be a secondary factor if your armored devisions can work together with ground attack airplanes and helicopter gunships with Anti Tank capability.

@mirage_panzer2274

Жыл бұрын

tank vs tank is pretty much if this scenario only happened on World Of Tanks because come one even WT have air supports

@TheDude50447

Жыл бұрын

@@mirage_panzer2274 Generally in modern Warfare at least for the western nations single unit types will hardly ever go up against single unit types of the opponent. The doctrine is a such that many different unit types will always have to work together to be at their most effective. The main battle tank is an important piece making accompanying infantry and their ifvs much more effective as well as being able to clear shorter range anti aircraft systems for helicopters while these units in turn make the life of the tank much easier. Its been like that since ww2 where one of the most effective new tactics at the time widely implemented first in the Nazi military was motorized infantry capable of keeping up with the tanks. But of course no matter the doctrine and how you might want it to work out its still possible that in battle there will be tank units encountering each other and itll be a classic battle like in ww2. Weve seen it during Desert storm where the last big tank battle took place in some cases without any support from infantry, artillery or airborne units.

WOT be like: We did not Penetrate their armor.

@wetlettuce4768

4 жыл бұрын

Just press 2 and that problem will go away.

@unnecessaryammorack

4 жыл бұрын

@@wetlettuce4768 laughs in Obj 279e

@Kalashnikov413

3 жыл бұрын

You guys play WoT with their fictional tanks?

@kennantjessavi7648

3 жыл бұрын

@@Kalashnikov413 Yeah, any suggestion for better tank games?

@Kalashnikov413

3 жыл бұрын

@@kennantjessavi7648 War Thunder Pros: 1. Realistic damage models 2. 3 casual gamemode (Arcade, Realistic, Simulator) 3. Have different things that WoT doesn't have (smoke grenade/shell, Machine Guns) 4. More tanks available in 9 different countries raging from 1920s to 2010s design (no fake tanks) 5. Have the ability to spawn more than one tank in one match Cons: 1. CAS Problems (because this is a combination of tanks, aircrafts, helicopters, and ships, Close Air Support can be annoying) 2. Power creep, especially in the upper tier 3. very well-known bug that was still present 'till this day, most notably the Ghost Shell 4. Tedious grinding time, because of how many the tanks in just a single line actually is 5. Some other issue that i can't tell because i didn't know many of them

Please rename video to: "Speculations on USSR tanks vs M1A1 1v1 in 1991".

@viking197

5 жыл бұрын

The M1 isn't as good as everyone thinks it is, it can get shot traped in the turret ring either hitting the vitals or just taking out the gun breach at least. But I'm not saying the T variants are any better.

@sarielreigns777

5 жыл бұрын

@@viking197 atleast check the crap Smoothbore barrel of Abrahms highly inaccurate at 4km max range

@Gorbag100

5 жыл бұрын

@Denis true, if you use tanks not in the way they are supposed to be used (that was what the turkish army did) they are ... pretty worthless. As almost every modern tank is armored in the same way - heavily armored front, weakly armored sides and rear (otherwise they would be slow af) - successfull flanking is a death sentence for them.

@shirghazaycowboys

5 жыл бұрын

@@viking197 Stop playing warthunder

@viking197

5 жыл бұрын

@@shirghazaycowboys what's that?

Should've discussed Russian anti-air defenses

@flipflop4396

5 жыл бұрын

what about them?

@killman369547

5 жыл бұрын

+Denis. the soviets had spy satellites which the iraqi's didn't have so i doubt they would be fooled by the flanking move. they likely would've spotted the US force splitting apart and deduced the smaller break off unit was the ruse.

@flipflop4396

5 жыл бұрын

@Denis First of all you are bit biased....saying something is best without any evidence isnt enough...soviets had like 2x less aircraft than US, so i dont know how would they cancel themself up...Second Soviets didnt had resources or capacity to move that much of troops airplanes and air defenses somwhere outside their territory....simply put, Soviets would get destroyed in Iraq, mostly by far greater US numbers.

@SilverShamrockNovelties

5 жыл бұрын

Iraq had a sophisticated air defense network...before the coalition destroyed it in coordinated air strikes in the first 3 days of Desert Storm.

@SilverShamrockNovelties

5 жыл бұрын

Denis it appears that you forgot about the number of coalition air sorties that destroyed Iraq’s air force and air defenses in the first few days of hostilities.

4:00 you said "eventhough the abrams would hit first the t72 should be able to hit back" you don't honestly believe that right? You dont really think that a tank crew being hit by something they dont have visibility on would stay in their tank and try to spot whatever is hitting them?

This is a gross oversimplification. It fails to account for anything relevant to winning or losing a war. If the Russians replaced the Iraqis you would see proper reconnisance screens deployed and far better anti aircraft deployment. Many more short to medium range air defenses and a far larger air presence. These plus better command and control would make a huge difference in the outcome.

@76456

2 жыл бұрын

this is a tank channel

@josephahner3031

2 жыл бұрын

@@76456 and?

@76456

2 жыл бұрын

@@josephahner3031 Just saying, he already took a bunch of time researching for this video. Sow no need to talk about everything,

you went from the Want if to just comparing Russian tanks vs an M1 which is a different topic.

@fubarsweeklund2141

5 жыл бұрын

@@enochvarga7570 it's not, it's logistics :)

@sarven5974

4 жыл бұрын

Damn, its as if this is a tank channel or smth

@sjakierulez

3 жыл бұрын

​@@sarven5974 Almost like the title insinuates something else

@sarven5974

3 жыл бұрын

@@sjakierulez Yeah but the channel as a whole is about tanks, I feel like a vid to be more tank focused is a no-brainer

The US also used the GPS in 73 Easting to flank. I don't think GLONASS was in existence yet.

Iraq: invades kuwait USSR: dissolves China and the other socialist states: facing problems US: its my chance!

@yourmom705

4 жыл бұрын

exactly

@husseinoskovjino9398

3 жыл бұрын

Riley Garcia No!

@kentriat2426

3 жыл бұрын

I think USA was ahead at time of gulf war two but the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan over the ten years have in effect bankrupt the defence abilities. Covid-19 has just compounded the issue to the point the rest of the world outside of China are now reluctant to by US bonds. The US debt is just to high and getting higher each week. The trillions being spent on covid 19 is just to much, It will start the rot on the currency and a move to an alternative currency for world trade. This move will destroy the US and cause a recession like has never been seen

@lape2002

3 жыл бұрын

@@kentriat2426 the US is on its way down and the Covid crisis is just the latest indicator on how weak their leadership actually is. Basically, it's the USSR of the 1980s.

@ddandymann

3 жыл бұрын

@@facepandaparty There has never been a truly communist state by definition as in true communism society reaches equity, where all things are shared completely equally. No society has ever reached a point of true equity hence no communism. Disclaimer in case you're a moron: I am not advocating for communism only describing its characteristics.

On April 1st you MUST look at the A-20 flying tank.

@sanjaykrishnannair8153

5 жыл бұрын

gets nuked out of the skies by the mighty chunguskas

@hafidza.p8584

3 жыл бұрын

A20?

@sidharthcs2110

3 жыл бұрын

SU 25 flying tank

@hafidza.p8584

3 жыл бұрын

@@sidharthcs2110 s200

@mr.laughington5740

3 жыл бұрын

You must spot the ZSU 23-4 SPAAG before the tank is taken out

I never see anyone talk about this but the T80/64 tanks would have a bit of a IR signature advantage as they vent their exhaust to the rear instead of the side like T-72, which looks like its firing a flamethrower from a themral imaging sight. T-90s sort of dealt with this with an APU so at least it doesn’t need its engine idling constantly. I’m surprised APUs didn’t become widespread in the 80s considering advances in thermals. Even Sherman tanks had an APU.

@gun_nerds

5 жыл бұрын

T-80s had APUs as well (while the M1 did not at that time)

@johnyricco1220

5 жыл бұрын

Oh yes on the T-80U from 1986. I don’t remember if any other tank of that period had one. You would think they would be common with overpressure NBC systems becoming standard

@gun_nerds

5 жыл бұрын

@@johnyricco1220 Yep... T-80UK/D as well of course. Also some of the T-64 had APU as well as the T-72B command versions. Bot those three models were the ones for decades. Not really sure why western tanks didn't have these sooner, seems a like a no-brainer to me.

@peterking2651

5 жыл бұрын

net split Chieftain had two engines, main engine & generator engine. Both engines could power the electrical circuits in an emergency (we had a couple of other tricks as well). This allowed us to run all the gun control equipment without running our main engine.

@evilreddog

5 жыл бұрын

no such thing as thermal advantage unless you put a camouflage net with ir reflection on them. it is not only the exhaust that gives up heat, but the entire hull of the tank is a big heatsink and dissipate the engine heat. So compared to ambient temperature (that ir use to distinguish targets) you are lighting up like a christmas tree. Also the T-80 series rooster tails the exhaust as we call it, in a dusty environment it will give away it's position at a long distance because of dust/sand kicking up like 10 meters. But this is just small things to consider when the soviets/russians would employ almost the same tactics as the Iraqi did, but with a more capable airforce and air defence systems. While the Russians have good equipment (designed to face western equipment) the tactics employed is horrible. this is why i think the end result would be the same with US coalition victory

Would be interesting to see how Soviet Union would handle Desert Storm AGAINST Iraq. If Soviet's were somehow involved on 'defending' side, for one, they would not wait until enemy deployed and set up all the forces as seen fit (though there's unlucky precedent ... ). Air campaing would not be that easy and they would manouver more. Allied logistics would be under constant threat.

@gethomas02

5 жыл бұрын

The Russians would have attacked

@IGLArocknroll

2 жыл бұрын

@@gethomas02 Perhaps you forgot it, but the Iraqis also attacked (see Battle of Khafji).

Always a pleasure to listen/watch your videos.. nice comparing. great videos :)

first time that i can see, wow this composite armor is looking in detail. very interesting. and imo huge respect for the very smart guys, who invited this.

The Iraqi Army has cultural/religious bars to alcoholism. Russia's army doesn't.

I wish you were also an aircraft guy, that would have been interesting since US would never attack without air superiority, and with air superiority you can reck the other side.

Keep up the great and interesting work man

Superb interesting take - well done ;)

Why do you speak only about tanks? The Gulf War was mostly about combined arms and not about tank warfare.

@fulcrum2951

5 жыл бұрын

The internet loves tank vs tank and neglects the actually realistic combined arms warfare

@rogaldorn7016

5 жыл бұрын

@@fulcrum2951 well, it doesn't justify the name of the video. He could use another name or mention that it is only about tanks.

@chrome505

5 жыл бұрын

@@rogaldorn7016 You only care about what you fight in....

@Tankliker

5 жыл бұрын

Because his channel is mostly about tanks? and gulf war was more or less the big moment for the M1 Abrams.

@vuk.3866

5 жыл бұрын

It's a tank channel

the abrams optics and fire range with accuracy were effective only up to 2km at 3 she lost alot of accuracy.

Well out here in Iraq tanks were destroyed mostly by air cause the Americans are more caution than putting there tanks in a risk situation so the safest way is the APCHE with hellfire missiles or A10 ...

I just love your videos! :)

6:48 "there would be a handfull of those" ... yeah that's what the germans thought. XD

Fair comparison, good video. A note regarding the missile use on tanks - what good is ATGM of 4-5km if you can`t spot the target?

@hgrgic

5 жыл бұрын

@eddie money In night conditions you can`t. It is confirmed in the video. Thermal imaging works at 2 km at best. This is why replacement is included in most upgrade packages: www.defence24.com/hsw-sa/polish-thermal-vision-systems-for-the-t-72-main-battle-tank So it is kind of funny, you have missile which has double the range, but it is mostly useless at night.

I'm surprised you do not have more subscribers. Keep up the good work.

IRAQI ARMY ARE NOT ISIS CHANGE THE VIDEO PICTURE!

@swetweeter

5 жыл бұрын

True, distasteful af

@sean2ization

5 жыл бұрын

Did they not drop their uniform and engage in insurgency/guerilla warfare?

@safeamer1313

5 жыл бұрын

@@sean2ization 1- I'm talking about saddam's army. 2- even the current army do u think they look like isis or some other terrorist group? If u don't know its easy... Go to Google and type IRAQI ARMY!

@user-fo3qd2dh4d

5 жыл бұрын

@@sean2ization you mean us army ?

@schaihmansur8298

5 жыл бұрын

Hmmm, American tanks through satellite support image shot Iraqi tanks from up to 5km distance. It’s sad , but Stalinium was rare at that time and Putinium wasn’t invented yet. So it doesn’t matter what Russia could have done. Russia „ which did not exist to the end of 1991“ was defeated in Chechen Russian war. Their tanks were not much of a help

T-72M was more similar to T-72 Ural in protection, while T-72M1 was similar to T-72A. Iraq had both T-72M and T-72M1

Don't forgot to calculate the factor of crew training. As far as I know Russia crewman were far from adequately trained.

@jackie520

5 жыл бұрын

Yup. It had to do with the soviet doctrine and strategy during the cold war. No matter who the agressor was (warsaw pact or nato) the soviets were going to be the invading force to make sure the mainland does not get touched. They even planned to invade the European NATO countries in 7 days. Needless to say soldiers from both sides during the cold war (and especially the soviets) didn't have a high life expectancy. So the soviets with their offensively oriented strategy focused on quantity over quality. Edit. Typo , lol.

@mb_tesla

5 жыл бұрын

That is true, although they were far better than Iraqi crew they still used outdated Soviet doctrines that would prove bad in First Chechen war, but after that doctrine got completely reworked and crew was adopted to modern combat and is well trained.

@BigSmartArmed

5 жыл бұрын

What did you base that on? Please be so ind to provide sources for Russian tank crew training requirements and how many hours of combat exercises they get per year.

@BigSmartArmed

5 жыл бұрын

@@jackie520 What is that Soviet doctrine? Please provide sources.

@BigSmartArmed

5 жыл бұрын

@@mb_tesla That is incorrect. There was no "Soviet doctrine" that was followed in the first Chechen war, but there was SABOTAGE. 1. Instead of experienced crews, fresh recruits were mobilized. 2. T-80 tanks did not have their ERA packs filled with explosives, they were EMPTY. 3. T-80 tanks were fueled with high octane gasoline instead of kerosene, which was against regulations. 4. Tanks were sent into city combat in a frontal attack and without infantry support, even though intel was clear that Grozny was defended by SEVEN defensive lines that were set up by ex-Soviet Afghan war veterans, all the while they were armed with manpad and heavy anti tank weapons. 5. No air cover was provided in spite of specific requests for helo support. You are completely ignorant of what factually happened in the first Chechen campaign.

Another great video

Lets be honest though the Gulf war was not just tank on tank. American air superiority would still rend Russia useless at a time when the Russian economy was terrible and the USSR was about crumble, so the result would still end the same (albeit with a lot more American losses) as long as nukes were not used. It would of probably ended the soviet union faster.

@Muscovy7

5 жыл бұрын

But the S-300V1 and PU was in mass production at the time and the Su-27PU was available in mass as well... US air dominance would've had a hard time m8

@christianelthorp8601

5 жыл бұрын

Drew Ivan very true but just the sheer size of the USAF plus the rest of Europe’s would eventually break through I think. However whatever force remained would be a lot less useful than it was before

@plazmica0323

5 жыл бұрын

@@christianelthorp8601 Planes are much more costly to produce and train crew than simple AA SAM pad/truck system which were installed in 1000s all over western part of USSR.

@johnmcdonald9304

5 жыл бұрын

Joe. Nah, the Russians would have all surrendered to the first American unit they came to and either asked for asylum or they would have said they were defectors.

@SilverShamrockNovelties

5 жыл бұрын

ivan ivanovitch ivanovsky Iraq had loads of AA and SAMs. The coalition air forces destroyed them all with minimal casualties.

There were also depleted uranium cannons in A10 & tank shells which United States used, so at that time in gulf war Russians do not have any quick solutions for it's allies to face the ultimate firepower of U.S

@virgiliustancu9293

2 жыл бұрын

A nuke?

They would have done what a lot of Iraqi's tried to do: surrender and emigrate to America, become succesfull entrepreneurs in Little Odessa, NY.

I was hoping this would be more of a tactical difference analysis, but nice video .

Do you have any books you would recommend for understand the techology behind these post ww2 Tanks? i find it hard to find books like that, looking for the technology and the doctrine if there is something like that?

When I'm bored, I watch these contents to either further my knowledge or to listen to this dude's voice

How does this analysis hold up now that Ukraine just happened?

@mbtenjoyer9487

2 жыл бұрын

I mean he compared 1991 Russia

@therealmp40

Жыл бұрын

Still good, considering it's comparing militaries from 1991

in 1991 there was a thing called air superiority that destroyed most of enemy tanks no matter their armor

@Daniel-jg8ff

4 жыл бұрын

But IF this were Russia they would also use russian MODERN sam-systems such as SA-5 Gammon, S300P/PS/PM, 9K35M Strela-10M4, 9K37 Buk and 2K22 Tunguska , plus russian modern Su27, MiG29 and MiG31 so think again about air superiority

Yeah but the main problem for the Iraqi armor was the tactics...wouldnt have mattered if they had a slightly better tank imo

@RedEffect If this war was fought in an area close to Iraq, wouldn't the Russian Republic be able to deploy a lot more tanks a lot quicker due to it's close proximity? I think in that case, the United States would have never attempted an invasion in the first place. We tend to avoid costly engagements with high casualty rates accumulating early on because the public wouldn't support it.

@patrickaalfs9584

2 жыл бұрын

@@KS-xo3oh They failed to pacify Afghanistan, and even though they DID share a border

@skyduke2150

11 ай бұрын

Yes it would be very defecult for the US do do such war

Most iraqi tanks were type-59/69s the chinese version of t-55 , the majorty of t-72s were in the republican guards which was a reserve and counter attack force in basrah " expect for 2 battalions " 68 - 70 tanks '' in the 12th armoured brigade of the 3rd armoured division from the iraqi army , neither of these two had seen any real action beside the Continuous heavy bombing they received ,, most of what Rumored about this war was part of the westren propaganda against the ussr , the reality is that the war wasn't equal from all aspects beside the iraqis lacking the morale factor as most of the Participants were vetrans of the 8 years war iraq fought against' iran who were really tired of war and the majority of iraqi's in general were against this war and had nothing to do with it beside dozens of other factors that played a major role in the result of this war , the equipment used was not a main reason , it was a war doomed to fail before it even started .

@nsms1297

4 жыл бұрын

That's how modern warfare works. USA fought a fair warfare and became superpower in world war 2. Rest of all battles they fought after world war 2 they had better equipments and air superiority over their enemy.

@zulfiqarhashim1376

4 жыл бұрын

@@nsms1297 only in the pacific till end of 1943 was it a "fair " fight, whatever that means.Germans in ETO were outnumbered and fighting with outclassed equipment in face of total air superiority of western allies.

@nsms1297

4 жыл бұрын

@@zulfiqarhashim1376 yes

@eminencerain848

3 жыл бұрын

@@zulfiqarhashim1376 False. Germany had superior weaponry through out the war, the Allies had to catchup to the superior fighters and tanks. What Germany could not fight on was the war on economics; the industrial and logistical capacity of the allies. Germany lost because it could not fuel and supply its war machines and armies.

@Noint-bc6gr

3 жыл бұрын

@@eminencerain848 their tanks were debatable. Personally it depends on the model ect. Just to big and to few and plagued with problems.

He forgot to add the T 80 tank might be there to shoot at, that is the engine starts lol

So how does composite work exactly? It always looks like a row of plates side by side, but instead of sitting in such a way as to go through all the plates, it looks like it goes through the side of 1. What happens if a shell pens through a gap between the plates?

Both side will have heavy casualty but US will have 1 advantage and that is training

@jakerad9553

5 жыл бұрын

More money and bigger military too

@tassiek2450

3 жыл бұрын

The Germans had more training but lost world war two.

@mr.laughington5740

3 жыл бұрын

Training? The Russian advantage equivalent of crew training is overwhelming numbers of cheap Russian tanks

Iraqi army stood its ground against 33 attacking countries during gulf war for a month with beat-up export version soviet weaponry, now taking in consideration the performance of Russia in Ukraine with all the advanced weaponry they brought to the table, I can say that if Russians fought in the gulf war instead of Iraqis, they wouldn't last a day because it's not the weapon that counts it's how you use the weapon that really counts.

@panterka.f

11 ай бұрын

you're a joke, lol

Wasn't T-72AV the most numerous T-72 variant at the end of the cold war? Compared to NATO, the Soviets tended to keep obsolete vehicles for a longer time, with upgrades to certain systems (for example, T-55 and T-62 in the 80s got add-on armor and ATGMs, etc)

3:06 actually it is T-72BA (1998). And the T-72B mod.89 are equiped with older RMSH tracks.

Not sure where you got your information, but the majority of tank vs. tank combat during the gulf war was close combat. In several engagements the US tanks would literally drive right up on them and the Iraq soldiers had no clue they were any where close. The reason the Abrams got the nickname whispering death due to the turbine engine plus not putting out the smoke that diesel engines do. The Iraq tanks were staged using Russian tactics and the US took full advantage of this. In several battles the Bradley scouts would spot and kill Iraq tanks without them even knowing what happened. And when the US did engage the Iraq army they would blitz them. Talking about the penetration values. There were a number of times the tank crew would have a HEAT round chambered and found it would pen the Russian tanks very easy setting off the ammo. I know some people get confused using examples of Abrams being used by countries that buy them, but they do not have as good of armor and do not fire the same ammo. Not only did the Abrams have a very easy time the Marines using the M60 had no problems taking Kuwait. In what has been said the largest tank battle the Marines had ever been in they destroyed 90 tanks with only a few M60 tanks taking hits and being disabled. And I do mean disabled and not destroyed. Using the 105mm they engaged T54/55s, T64s, and T72s.

*_Generally speaking protection level is superb. The only problem is that the side armor falls off._*

@janchovanec8624

5 жыл бұрын

Well, TBH no modern MBT can withstand a side shot from another modern MBT, but against other weapons it could be useful.

@janchovanec8624

5 жыл бұрын

Well, TBH no modern MBT can withstand a side shot from another modern MBT, but against other weapons it could be useful.

How come you didn't mention the Challenger 1? Obviously L26 is pretty classified but it also fought in the gulf war.

Tanks for watching 😁

I dont think US tanks were ingage in moving combat situation with soviet/iraq tanks most damage was done through the air There are videos or info about tank on tank engagement, Like in Kursk?

@jackie520

5 жыл бұрын

What ? Have you even heard about the battle of 73 easting ?

@vaninec

5 жыл бұрын

@@jackie520 No Lol that was like "clubbing of baby seals" I dont consider that tank on tank where one side using satellites jets helicopter and so on.... And other sitting and waiting I think most Iraqi tanks were empty LoL

@jackie520

5 жыл бұрын

@@vaninec lol , you said they didn't fight on the ground. They did bro. And it was one hell of a victory for the US. The Iraqis were using old downgraded gear , poorly trained crews and incompetent commanders.

@vaninec

5 жыл бұрын

@@jackie520 Last supply from ussr were in 1970 More like Kamikaze fight LoL

@vaninec

5 жыл бұрын

@Anon Inconnu again U compare 1955 production tank with 1980s compare T62 with M-60 really 25 years gaping hole Just like taking any ww1 tank vs soviet KV, IS or T -34 LoL

NICE video man! So much hapiness watching this video!! Can you do a video about/with the french Leclerc? Attemps n^12

@erik8346

5 жыл бұрын

The Leclerc is a worse K2

@arvedludwig3584

5 жыл бұрын

@@erik8346 i raise you the e-mbt.

@mr.laughington5740

3 жыл бұрын

@@erik8346 K2 is a knock-off copy of the Abrams and Leopard 2

Suggest you come up with some specific scenarios or how a general engagement likely would have turned out

Tanks for watching.

The US used Soviet doctorine with an hour+ opening artillery barrage

I believe could be wrong but the main battle tank then for the russians was the t-72 and those are pos , the t90 didnt come into service until 1993 and its still lacks against the M1A1, so a lot of dead t72 which the iraq had at the time.

@kittyhawk9707

5 жыл бұрын

The Iraqi T72's were downgraded export models .. they were pretty bad ..

@apalahartisebuahnama7684

5 жыл бұрын

You shouldn't buy any heavy weapon from russia

@nemanjaredzic1565

5 жыл бұрын

No,if t90 was in service,it would outclass m1a1ha at the time cause they didnt developed round that could ignore k5 ERA and best one was m298a1 that would have hard time even against composite of t90 alone,let alone plus k5 era

Awesome ! Can you do a video on the Merkava ? Thanks ! Attempt #1.

The Hellfire and Maverick missiles would still have won.

@darkoneforce2

5 жыл бұрын

@Jose Raul Miguens Cruz From A-10 Warthogs (Maverick) and Apache attack helicopters (Hellfire). During the Gulf war(s) most Iraqi tanks were destroyed by these 2.

3:53 really cool still photo

Well you still have the Americans lighting their hair on fire over this. Good job two thumbs up

So how do you go about engaging a tank that has superior spotting range?

And why did US not put DU plates in the hull? How much increased protection would the same DU plate added to the turret add if placed on the front hull roof and LFP?

Well IF the T-72 ended up being too much of a tough nut to crack then we would have just sent in the nutcracker in the form of the A-10 or AH64.

@myms7375

3 жыл бұрын

Tor-M1 and Tunguska enter the chat

I actually do enjoy your videos and think you provide some good content. I spent over 11 yrs in the US army (2000-2011) with 2 tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. One thing I would like to correct you on is the front hull armor of the M1A1, it can easily defeat sabot rounds and isn't a weak spot. Of course if you can get to it's sides and rear it can easily be penetrated by tank rounds. But the Abrams is known for have very good hull armor, expecially against shoulder launched weapons like an RPGs. As far as who would win. Well I do agree that the Russians would definitely put up a much better fight, that I have no doubt of. But I still believe the US would win. Yes the Iraqis had mostly older Russian equipment but what people don't realize is that they were fairly well trained and had a lot of combat experience. The Iraq military were specifically trained by the Russians and used the exact same tactics that the Russians would have basically used. While I'm also sure you were trying to simplify the question by just putting tank vs tank, but I'm sure you know in a real war or battle that it doesn't work like that. When fighting a war the US uses combined arms tactics and trains that way. So a US tank company or platoon isn't the only thing the enemy will be facing on the battlefield. They will have to deal with the US air power, which I'm sure you know just how powerful it is and what kind of game changer it is. I'm also going to have give US tank crews the edge in training and support assets if we being realistic.

@ledzik1893

5 жыл бұрын

Guys on middle east are hopeless. Soviets train Iraqis before Desert Storm and they were slaughtered, recently you train them and when they fought with daesh even whit M1s and air power on they side they fled the battlefield leaving they equipment. So yea if we theoretically gave iraq modern soviet equipment they doomed, and its still steamroll, but if we put soviet soldiers at the place of that mob then even with that outdated equipment, well.. That would be quite a bloodbath.

@Dischingo

2 жыл бұрын

@@ledzik1893 I wouldnt say the middle east is hopeless look at Israel.

@BtappinHD

2 жыл бұрын

Just like the Afghans were trained by the U.S. military, but lost their country to the Taliban again

@joekent5675

Жыл бұрын

@@BtappinHD it's not that they "lost", it was because they all largely gave up. Biiiig difference.

@BtappinHD

Жыл бұрын

@@joekent5675 It was a loss, had it been a win the Taliban would've surrendered and not have regained control over Afghanistan

I am honored to be here in this comment section, surrounded by the greatest strategic minds that humanity has to offer.

Love your show man.. Even though your accent is kinda weird... So I have to sometimes go back and listen to it again.

the air defense system Neva C-125 is Soviet production and is considered outdated, but managed to crash the planes f 117 and b2.Any weapon can have results if it is used in the right way

"Tanks for watching" :)....You're welcome :D

How do you know that it is more effective than Cobham armour?

tbf this is all spec comparison; remember that all tanks aren't impervious + disabling the engine or hitting the tracks will be a mobility kill. Both tanks have different requirements and design specs, you can't really compare them and say one is better than the other. Honestly it comes down to who can perform first hits and who spots who first. Also you got to remember big military strategy like logistics, combined arms, and maneuver warfare.

That Soviet soldier at the beginning of all RedEffect videos was the exact thing that kept Americans and Western Europeans awake at night during the Cold War.

@johnmcdonald9304

5 жыл бұрын

Axemantian. The Russian then and now are a bunch of drunks.

@chandlerwhite8302

5 жыл бұрын

Unless he has an ICBM, no.

@Kulayyu

5 жыл бұрын

john mcdonald Yes, keep believing that stereotype and the lies. I’m certain you’ll change your mind when the drunk Russians come knocking on your door to politely ask if your wife and daughter are in and if you have any wrist watches lying around. The aftermath of battle of Berlin is what kept the West awake at night.

@flipflop4396

5 жыл бұрын

@@Kulayyu yep Battle for Berlin was the last time Soviets looked impressive.

@flipflop4396

5 жыл бұрын

@eddie money what research 🤣 you mean Sputnik and RT research 😅Like that time Russia went in offense was against Afghanistan, they ended up humiliated. In Europe they would get butchered, Russia is a paper tiger...get over it.

oh the T-80UK, the best tank that came out during the cold war, one of my favorites, I think that it was ahead of its time considering the Shtora-1 combined with LWR.

@ruhtraeregel

5 жыл бұрын

The T80 was a utter failure so many failures why do you think the Russians went right to the T90.

@thephoenix6673

5 жыл бұрын

@@ruhtraeregel because they wanted to cut costs, the T-80 Gas turbine engine was a logistical disaster for them, after the dissolve of the soviet union they wanted to produce a single platform so they combined the T-72 platform with the T-80 turret and we got the T-90, when you look at specifications the T-90 back then wasn't that much different than the T-80UK, in fact it was inferior in some aspects.

@Unbekannter2024

5 жыл бұрын

@@thephoenix6673 Still no, M1A1HC+ is better.

@method1692

5 жыл бұрын

@@Unbekannter2024 You're supposed to give reasons why it's better rather than just saying it's better.

@Unbekannter2024

5 жыл бұрын

@eddie money M1A1HA+ was immune to everyone round that was in disposal of T-80U/T-80BV/T-72B at that time. You can't joke with 780mm protection aganist KE. It had superiour FCS, with MUCH better optics and thermal/NGV visors, with better ballistic computers. T-80U was immune only for first shot, as after K-5 going down, his UFP with 460mm aganist KE could be easily penetrated not by M829A1, but by standard M829. Last two points is that M1A1HA had better ergonomics for crew and blowout panels.

They would have attack Allied buildup in Saudi Arabia 2 months into it or even sooner, wiping it out. Then sent forces to occupy the desalination plants and another force to Riyadh to negotiate a surrender. If America and allies are still determined, they will be forced to build up forces somewhere else, significantly further out of reach or behind a more easily defended country. Either Egypt, or Syria or Israel

@ausaskar

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, Iraq made a lot or errors but the largest was digging in and letting the Coalition bomb the shit out of their supporting assets and surgically disassemble their whole apparatus before just driving in with their armour and cleaning up the confused immobile Iraqis. The Soviets were ingrained from the Patriotic War, initiative is everything. They wouldn't have sat still and let NATO bomb them with impunity and disable their capabilities one by one. The second conflict was inevitable they would have attacked all out - now whether that would have worked or not is up for debate. But it's a better plan than what Iraq did.

Tank vs Tank series ! PLEASE!

Soviet Union dissolved at the end of that year. But the issues that lead up to it started much earlier. Not sure the state of the military at that point but it should be a crucial factor.

@panterka.f

11 ай бұрын

it was total stagnation for at least a decade before the fall of the USSR

@markdsm-5157

11 ай бұрын

@@panterka.f lol.. and ever since...

What is the thumbnail man The Iraqi army is not Isis

war thunder might not be a realistic example for tank penetration but the Abrams (120mm gun) can kill the t-72 from 5 kilometers with heat-fs, and the apfsds shell of the Abrams can kill it from around 3000 meters (3 kilometers)

Could you do a video on the Al-Khalid and Al-Zarrar tanks? I need an unbiased opinion

T-80u T-80b T-80uk have thermal!

Sending love from America to RedEffect and everyone!💖🙏💯 Great video as always! I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND watching the tank battles from 1991 Desert Storm including the news briefings by General Schwarzkopf. He explains well how the tank operations went. Let's not forget that NATO was GREATLY out matched. Iraq had a 4 million man army, far more tanks etc. However, NATO did so well in the first few days that Iraq BURIED there tanks with the exception of the gun turret of course and they were STILL destroyed. In one major battle, when an entire division being led by three Abrams tanks came up on the Republican Guards, the tank commander radioed FIRE at the other 2 Abrams tanks and in under 15 mins everything was destroyed that was on radar which was a LOT. Achieved from 2 miles (I believe, maybe longer, not sure).

@89hhbuh8yuvghbhu

5 ай бұрын

the thing is, most iraqi tanks were T-55's, T-62's and T-72s (without upgraded composite no era, not even Kontakt-1, no thermals, and they wouldnt be used APFSDS, theyd probably be using Heat FS. Iraq's number advantage proved no use since most of there tanks couldnt penetrate the M1 Abrams anywhere at any distance, had no sights or lazer range finding equipment, and most of there tanks were T-55's and T-62s which have no composite at all. Iraq's armored force was extremely outdated and it posed no real threat to American ground forces. In 1991, tank battles between the Soviets and the Americans would play out MUCH differently to those that occured in Iraq, most Russian tanks would have adequate protection against NATO vehicles, or enough protection to protect most of the tank from any NATO round in service fired from any distance, not to mention, all of the Soviet's modernized tanks at that time had lazer range finding equipment and thermals, most of which being slightly worse than American Thermals, except in some cases with T-80 variants which would possess better Thermal sights. American tanks would be forced to engage Soviet tank forces much more carefully, as any rushed encounter would see HUGE losses for the attacking side. in 1991, coalition forces and the soviets had around the same number of modern tanks, having around 3000 T-80's of all variants, 3000- 5000(depending on the source) modernized T-72's of all variants, which would be able to match the number of modern coalition tanks. Basically, it would be a slog between coalition tank forces and Soviet tank forces, no side would really have the upper hand, and both would suffer many losses

À lot of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by A-10 aircraft. US always integrates its different weapon systems for better effectiveness. For example they outclassed Iraqi airforce by use of AWACs, while Iraqis were only relying on ground radars.

@moritamikamikara3879

2 жыл бұрын

"Non-credible defense is typing..."

@4:35 You forget that when an era block is hit it explodes reveling unprotected turret armor. The Kontakt-5 blocks are quite large so that would create a relatively easy to hit weak spot.

@sjwarialaw8155

3 жыл бұрын

lol yeah, at 1 to 2 km... an easy to hit weak spot...

The Russian tanks would have been hit from the side. You should have also talked about the side armour and how resistant they could be to a Javlin missile. The Americans would also have the GPS. You should also mention there were other country's involved. The invasion was a joint cooperation between NATO and America.

@fuckoff4705

Жыл бұрын

the javelin attacks the top so its irrelevant from what angle you hit it

This hasn't aged well. Ukraine has proved that all Russian equipment is a joke.

@willl7780

2 жыл бұрын

ukrain is losing though

I always wondered how things would've went if Russia did Gulf War 1 instead of us. Can you make a vid on that?

Does Iraq looks like an Octagon Ring for 2 heavy weight fighters?

Every single tank you named for Russia can get penetrated on the hull from m829a1 out to 2km, the turrets on all of them can be penned except for the kontact 5 on the 80U but since there is less that 50% coverage of ERA on the front, most shots will go through the turret. On top of that T series tanks take one penetrated shell before either exploding or killing at least 2 crew members rendering the tank Mission killed. Russia would have been able to penetrate Abrams UFP at long ranges due to the arc degree it would hit it. I honestly cant take your videos serious.

@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here

2 жыл бұрын

Stopped taking your bs comment seriously after you said “Russia”. Tard

Cool informative video man really you put a lot of effort to showcase the technicalities of these russian tanks , but how did you get those turret armour protection components images of t-72 bm and t-80 u???

@argy007

5 жыл бұрын

There is a lot of information on Russian internet and in some obscure books. On this website you can find some limited information about armor composition of soviet tanks. It may also be the source if the images used. btvt.info/3attackdefensemobility/armor.htm

@yashsingh3126

5 жыл бұрын

@@argy007 thank you my friend for your help

This should be a good one

Proof that there are STILL some people out there trying to make the T-80 out into some kind of amazing wonder tank.

I thought vid would be Russians vs Iraqis 😅

Air power and superior US training likely would've defeated USSR troops.

@clapper3530

5 жыл бұрын

Man...

The counter to laser detectors might be cheap laser sources to spray out many false beams so they don't know if it detected a real threat or a dummy. If they set off a detectable defense system then they would be the first noticed. Do you or don't you must be decided quickly.

Depleted uranium hulls were implemented in 1988, so you were wrong there. Also the actual protective value was secret. I like your program it is good and I try to watch them all. Keep it up and thanks.