[Roosta]

No, As a "Show of Force" is sometimes enough to ward of your enemies.

[Marduk92EG]

Originally Posted by Kenco ↗

Wow... you are horribly misinformed man. By all means, cite any of this information. Maybe you're from one of those nations which augments it's information to their populace, but our losses were openly reported and supported by all coalition nations. And... some of us have first hand insight. Tanks alone, Iraqis lost 100 to 1 compared to the coalition tanks. (About 3000 to about 30). This isn't Russia where we try and say we haven't lost barely any soldiers, and his have over 100k people not contacting their families anymore, nor is it China where they claim to never have any testing errors when developing next generation weapon systems. Other than top secret and black budget programs, things are relatively transparent here. We know this because we do report our errors, crashes, failures etc. And... that's also why we have a military than can IN REALITY, easily defeat any others on Earth... even in multiple theaters simultaneously while far from our own shores. I don't think it's smart to compare us to the joke that has been Russia in Ukraine. Lol.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I doubt you even have a slight clue about anything military-related, no the Iraqis did not lose 3000 tanks vis 30 "Abrams"

Do you know the origin of those numbers?
Its based on satellite imagery data, its not based on empirical evidence, and it includes a number of factors and wrong pre-assumptions in order to manipulate the data and present a picture divergent from reality.
No survey was taken of the battlefield after to determine detailed battle damage data. CENTCOM vastly over exaggerated Iraqi casualties and supposed "destruction" to compensate for the fact that Iraq still posed a threat to Kuwait 1991-2007. Iraqi republican guard engaged and conducted multiple armoured thrusts against coalition forces in Kuwait after the cessation of hostilities in March of 1991.
Iraq threatened to re-invade Kuwait just a couple of months after they retreated in 1991 and they actually came very close to doing it in 1993,1994, 1995 and finally 1996, requiring the deployment of US troops every time. Does that sound like a "defeated" enemy?



We initially also claimed to have destroyed 100 Iraqi mobile SCUD-launchers, but later we found out that we did in fact not destroy a single mobile SCUD-launcher.
Our LEO military satellites and our SCUD-hunting teams proved to be totally inadequate in locating and engaging the mobile Iraqi launchers.

Iraqi missile forces were much more experienced and effective than Russian missile teams, it took the Iraqis only 30 minute to complete a SCUD launch-cycle, reducing the Russian's standard 90 minute launch-cycle by more than 2/3.
Military satellites have a typical orbit of around 90-120 minutes.
The decision to supply Ukraine with highly-mobile HIMARS is based on the Iraqis' use of mobile SCUD teams.


The Iraqis managed to capture/kill all of our SCUD-hunting teams. They knew their territory very well and had eyes and ears everywhere through the Bedouin shepherds roaming the deserts of Iraq aswell as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen. They had quite a lot of informants from the strategic city of Hai'l (the emirs of Hai'l fled to Iraq after Al-Saud conquered them in the early 1900's)
These would report in a hierarchical structure directly to the Iraqi intelligence services.
Iraqi intelligence services were organized in a tribal manner so it proved to be impenetrable, the CIA and the other 10 or so intelligence services we have gets penetrated everyday, same goes for the RSV and GRU, but when you organize your intelligence apparatus the same way Saddam Hussein did and you live in a traditional society, you get an impenetrable security service.

[Crossman]

Thought this might help answer your question. Seems drones are having an effect on what future tanks will be built like.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine....gram-announced

[Kenco]

Originally Posted by Marduk92EG ↗

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I doubt you even have a slight clue about anything military-related, no the Iraqis did not lose 3000 tanks vis 30 "Abrams"

Do you know the origin of those numbers?
Its based on satellite imagery data, its not based on empirical evidence, and it includes a number of factors and wrong pre-assumptions in order to manipulate the data and present a picture divergent from reality.
No survey was taken of the battlefield after to determine detailed battle damage data. CENTCOM vastly over exaggerated Iraqi casualties and supposed "destruction" to compensate for the fact that Iraq still posed a threat to Kuwait 1991-2007. Iraqi republican guard engaged and conducted multiple armoured thrusts against coalition forces in Kuwait after the cessation of hostilities in March of 1991.
Iraq threatened to re-invade Kuwait just a couple of months after they retreated in 1991 and they actually came very close to doing it in 1993,1994, 1995 and finally 1996, requiring the deployment of US troops every time. Does that sound like a "defeated" enemy?



We initially also claimed to have destroyed 100 Iraqi mobile SCUD-launchers, but later we found out that we did in fact not destroy a single mobile SCUD-launcher.
Our LEO military satellites and our SCUD-hunting teams proved to be totally inadequate in locating and engaging the mobile Iraqi launchers.

Iraqi missile forces were much more experienced and effective than Russian missile teams, it took the Iraqis only 30 minute to complete a SCUD launch-cycle, reducing the Russian's standard 90 minute launch-cycle by more than 2/3.
Military satellites have a typical orbit of around 90-120 minutes.
The decision to supply Ukraine with highly-mobile HIMARS is based on the Iraqis' use of mobile SCUD teams.


The Iraqis managed to capture/kill all of our SCUD-hunting teams. They knew their territory very well and had eyes and ears everywhere through the Bedouin shepherds roaming the deserts of Iraq aswell as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen. They had quite a lot of informants from the strategic city of Hai'l (the emirs of Hai'l fled to Iraq after Al-Saud conquered them in the early 1900's)
These would report in a hierarchical structure directly to the Iraqi intelligence services.
Iraqi intelligence services were organized in a tribal manner so it proved to be impenetrable, the CIA and the other 10 or so intelligence services we have gets penetrated everyday, same goes for the RSV and GRU, but when you organize your intelligence apparatus the same way Saddam Hussein did and you live in a traditional society, you get an impenetrable security service.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Fine, here's the official numbers from the DOD, and if you thnk they "didn't count" you have no experience with US military lol. And... your "quotes" are all fine and great, but you don't provide any sources...sooo... lol. Did the kid down the street say these things? Lol.

"During air and ground operations, U.S. and allied forces destroyed over 3,000 tanks, 1,400 armored personnel carriers, 2,200 artillery pieces, and countless other vehicles. Ninety-six service members were killed in action; an estimated 30,000 Iraqi troops were killed."

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-St...-desert-storm/

Another source:

https://history.army.mil/html/booksh...orm/index.html

And here's why Iraq still had war capabilites after the first Gulf War:

"Iraq was thought to have between 1,800 and 2,000 tanks in working order, compared with at least 5,500 before the 1991 Gulf War. About 700 tanks were thought to be relatively capable Soviet T-72’s, but they were outmatched by U.S. equipment. The T-72’s, for example, lack adequate night-vision equipment and have half the range of an American M1A1 Abrams tank, which in 1991 hit Iraqi tanks from as far as 1.9 miles away."

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ira...S.%20equipment.

I'd love to see your "sources" other than some whacky propaganda Russian site you get your info from.

[Brian]

1. Neither Russian and Iraq actually owned that amount of tanks to be destroyed. A lot of count is just a number written by someone sitting in an office somewhere far away from the front line

2. According to the record, from WWII, 60-70% of the loss of tanks are due to malfunction, mechanical issues and just went into a bad road condition and cannot moving out and the crew abandoned them. --and it is very common a battalion lost half of the units when they reached the line before operation.The same thing happened to all land vehicles, just not as much as tanks and APCs. Most of those can be retrieved, then repaired, and used again and they could get count again for the same reason--air crafts are different story. This rule is especially applied for Russian made units--as they have statistics from war that average time operational for tank on field before destroyed is just about 20 hours. So they made it not to be lasting, just OK for use.

3. The drone attach is actually not doing much damage on armored unit--as limited capacity and flying not high enough to get the gravity do its job, unless it gets lucky to get inside of them. Most of the tank/apc may get fire on outside but it is controllable and repairable, but they may counted as destroyed while it is hit...

[Kenco]

Originally Posted by Brian ↗

1. Neither Russian and Iraq actually owned that amount of tanks to be destroyed. A lot of count is just a number written by someone sitting in an office somewhere far away from the front line

2. According to the record, from WWII, 60-70% of the loss of tanks are due to malfunction, mechanical issues and just went into a bad road condition and cannot moving out and the crew abandoned them. --and it is very common a battalion lost half of the units when they reached the line before operation.The same thing happened to all land vehicles, just not as much as tanks and APCs. Most of those can be retrieved, then repaired, and used again and they could get count again for the same reason--air crafts are different story. This rule is especially applied for Russian made units--as they have statistics from war that average time operational for tank on field before destroyed is just about 20 hours. So they made it not to be lasting, just OK for use.

3. The drone attach is actually not doing much damage on armored unit--as limited capacity and flying not high enough to get the gravity do its job, unless it gets lucky to get inside of them. Most of the tank/apc may get fire on outside but it is controllable and repairable, but they may counted as destroyed while it is hit...

While I'm not sure exactly what the level of disrepair was the qualifying metric for these stats, the percentage would be the same. Also, Iraq had well over 5k tanks prior to first Gulf War and indeed lost over 3k of them... leaving about 2k which were mostly destroyed or captured in the early days of the next Gulf War. There's plenty of info on this of you look it up and one of the sources I included discusses these numbers. I get your guys are likely Russian and are exposed to biased state run media. The fact you have access to outside media kinda puts this on your to do the legitimate research. The facts are that the US and Russian militaries aren't even in the same league. That's clear to the whole world now, and no amount of propaganda will ever change that... except maybe for the group of brainwashed Russians willing to listen to those idiots in those Russian discussion panels on their state television. People can believe what they want, but let's hope those misguided beliefs don't end up leading to Russia doing something it'll very quickly regret. The US military could easily wipe out and push out every last Russian from Ukraine in... I'd say a week at the most if we really entered this fight... while still maintaining plenty of military capabilities to fight a full of war with China at the same time, and STILL keep our borders completely safe. A full nuclear exchange is really the only threat, and China has shit for nukes, and the viability of Russia's nuclear arsenal is highly questionable after what we've seen regarding corruption, neglect, and disrepair the rest of their military equipment has keep subjected to.

[Marduk92EG]

Originally Posted by Kenco ↗

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Fine, here's the official numbers from the DOD, and if you thnk they "didn't count" you have no experience with US military lol. And... your "quotes" are all fine and great, but you don't provide any sources...sooo... lol. Did the kid down the street say these things? Lol.

"During air and ground operations, U.S. and allied forces destroyed over 3,000 tanks, 1,400 armored personnel carriers, 2,200 artillery pieces, and countless other vehicles. Ninety-six service members were killed in action; an estimated 30,000 Iraqi troops were killed."

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-St...-desert-storm/

Another source:

https://history.army.mil/html/booksh...orm/index.html

And here's why Iraq still had war capabilites after the first Gulf War:

"Iraq was thought to have between 1,800 and 2,000 tanks in working order, compared with at least 5,500 before the 1991 Gulf War. About 700 tanks were thought to be relatively capable Soviet T-72’s, but they were outmatched by U.S. equipment. The T-72’s, for example, lack adequate night-vision equipment and have half the range of an American M1A1 Abrams tank, which in 1991 hit Iraqi tanks from as far as 1.9 miles away."

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ira...S.%20equipment.

I'd love to see your "sources" other than some whacky propaganda Russian site you get your info from.

YOU'RE the one with no idea what you're talking about, and your obsession with "sources" attests to that simple fact.
Iraq did not even deploy 3 000 tanks in the Kuwait theatre to begin with, and you should learn English as well while you're at it, I didn't say they "didn't count", I pointed out that the USCENTCOM methodology for casualty estimates is incorrect as it vastly overinflates enemy casualties.
The CIA and DIA estimates for Iraqi casualties is significantly lower than that of the USCENTCOM, only 15-20% of the original USCENTCOM numbers.
The true Iraqi as well as coalition casualty numbers are classified, but the Iraqi casualty numbers are nowhere close to the ones you're citing.

Originally Posted by Kenco ↗

About 700 tanks were thought to be relatively capable Soviet T-72’s, but they were outmatched by U.S. equipment. The T-72’s, for example, lack adequate night-vision equipment and have half the range of an American M1A1 Abrams tank, which in 1991 hit Iraqi tanks from as far as 1.9 miles away."
.

This is plain misinformation, we fielded IPM1's with 105 mm L7/M68 cannons, the t-72's were equipped with much more powerful 125mm cannons. The majority of the Abrams in 1991 were of the IPM1 type and not the M1A1.


Iraq still had capabilities after the first Gulf war because the Iraqis were very competent soldiers. They inflicted massive casualties on us during the battle of Kuwait Airport and during the huge tank battles in south-west of Basra.