z63\doc\web\2003\03\dstank.txt From: portal!cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu@uunet.uu.net (portal!cup.portal.com! Arthur_T_Hu@uunet.uu.net) Subject: Tanks in Desert-Storm Newsgroups: sci.military Date: 1991-10-09 04:31:18 PST Oct 7, 1991 Tank Forces - Desert Storm Tanks I did a bit of combing around, and this is what I came up with on numbers of tanks and those lost Total Numbers US Army: 1,847 M-1 Abrams 1,682 M-2/M-3 Bradley US Marine Corps: 140 M60A1, 58 M1 Abrams, 324 LAV-TOW/-25, 400 AAV7A1 British Army 157 Challenger, 135 Warrior, 24 Scopion, 24 Scimitar, 16 Striker AT US Army Information office on tank losses Reports at the end of the war gave four M1s damaged and none destroyed, and just 2 Bradleys out of action. Not exactly. M1 Abrams main battle tank None were destroyed by enemy fire - even though some T-72s scored direct hits. Of 1,847 Army M-1s in theater 3 damaged 1 by mine 2 by anti-tank round Friendly 6 destroyed by M1 - only penetrations were by US 120MM guns 3 destroyed to prevent capture after damage 1 by fire Total 10 destroyed 8 damaged (5 mine, 3 rockets) (1 friendly fire) M2/M3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle 3 destroyed by enemy fire 2 damaged 3 damaged by mine(?) 17 destroyed by friendly fire 15 by M1 Abrams 1 by hellfire 1 by TOW 3 by M2 Bradley Total 20 destroyed 2 M113s were also lost in friendly fire incidents. News reports are that some of the hits were caused because RPGs bounching off side armour looked like enemy fire on IR sensors, and they "returned" this fire. I guess they never trained for this. Books say that Kafji resulted in lessons that were later applied, because there were no further friendly fire incidents reported. But these latest reports show that Kafji was typical of what was to come - almost all losses were due to friendly fire because the Iraqis were so utterly incapable of inflicting harm on American forces. Bradleys Bradleys scored an unpublished number of TOW kills, and even some 25mm kills. Aviation Week says that M-1s and M-2s would trade off targets depending on the situation. The Bradleys would fire 25s into a berm, and would follow up with a TOW if flashes showed a vehicle hiding behind it. The electronics are something like one-quarter of its cost, and it looks like it was worth it. Sounds like they were employed as light tanks, instead of dismounting their troops like a good APC is supposed to do. Some M-2s had extra bolted-on armour, which blocked the side gun ports, which were probably useless anyways. Survivability and Critics Both M-1s and M-2s damaged or destroyed usually had fairly good survival rates, in contrast to critics predictions that the M-2 would become a funeral pyre if hit because of fuel and ammo storage. It is likely some M-1 hits that bounced off would have been destroyed if they were M60s instead. The gas issue was a total non-issue. Any fool should know that logistics is not an issue with the US Army. The armoured bulldozers that got so much yucks from the critics along with the M-1 also proved to come in handy for breaking down berms and burying Iraqis in their trenches (sorry guys, but killing guys with sand isn't much different than using CBUs). I have heard no reports of if Ammo blow doors worked as advertised (if it goes up, the blast goes up through the roof instead of into the crew compartment) Sheridan No Sheridans were lost. (This was the tank staring at a Camel in the cute photo shot) There is no record of combat action for these light tanks. They can be air-dropped from C-130s, but this capability was not used. It isn't said if the Airborne troops would rather have LAVS. There is no word if they are still using the old Shilleleigh missles. They were the first "tanks" in Desert Shield, with a gun capable of killing MBTs, but they are too lightly armoured even against 50 cal guns. Since there were only 55 of them, it seems they were only good for scaring Iraqis, and CNN shots. They were completely insignificant compared to the Saudi Army. Anti-Aircraft. It looks like there was no work at all for anti-aircraft batteries, which consisted of Vulcan Air Defence (M113s) and Chapparal (ground Sidewinder). In theory, 20mm could be useful against light armour as a sort of M3 mounted gun, and CNN showed at least one being fired. US Marine Corps The only losses that the Marine Corps has publicized are 2 M60A1 disabled due to mines, and 2 LAVs at Kafji, one killed by A10/Maverick, and one by a TOW (unspecified ground or AH-1W). 1 of the 2 had been reported as killed by a T-72 at the end of the war, but that is incorrect. Note that both LAVS were a total crew loss, compared to M-2 Bradley and Warrior where hits usually resulted in 50% survival or better. Hackworth for Newsweek thinks we should junk the Bradley for the LAV, but Desert Storm performance shows light vehicles can't hack what the heavier IFVs can do. The AAV7s (ex-LVTP7) worked well mechanically, but didn't see much in the way of actual fighting under fire. Photos show upgraded armour, evidently reactive. According to an interviewed officer on A&E Brute Force, tanks took no personell casualties in the assault on Kuwait. The Marine I spoke to believes he drove by the 2 disabled M-60s. The Wall Street Journal reported 2 M60s lost, but it appears to be these same 2 tanks. Remarks M60 The battle at the airport was fought out of the range of Iraqi crews who fired short of the American tanks, and evidently never got a single hit. A returning M60 tank commander said the most he did was run over a couple of mines, and didn't get to shoot any tanks. He did inadvertantly blow up an oil dump shooting at some snipers after he was ordered to fire on it. Reports prior to the war that the T-72 was roughly equivalent to the M-1, and the M60 was vastly inferior are incorrect. American crews are much better trained, and the M60's 105 is much better gun than their 125. IR sensors and fire control system are better. Armour protection is better, ammo storage is less vunerable, and the vehicle is much less flammable. The M60 does have the highest profile of any main battle tank, but this didn't really hurt. It is likely the Army would have sustained some tank kills if they had M-60s in cases where Iraqi rounds bounced off M-1 armour, but otherwise it seems M60s would have done the job with somewhat higher losses and lower speed. The Blazer reactive armor evidently was never tested. The Blazer armour is normally dummy to fool satellites, but it was fitted with the real stuff once they got in theater. The design was licenced from the Israelis, who first used in in Lebanon. LCACs (air cushion hovercraft landing craft) were used to transport the tanks from the Landing Ship Tanks to shore, even though they were not used in a direct assault. LAV LAVs are capable of being slung underneath Sea Stallion heavy lift helicopters, but this capability was not used in combat. Some were loaned to Army Airborne troops, who evidently liked them a lot (they are issued 25 year old Sheridan recon tanks, which can't hold troops). My tank commander friend says he heard of a story that some LAV-25s ran into T-72s near the airport. There were no aircraft or tanks to take them on, and the LAV-TOW they had didn't have anybody trained to use the TOW (?!) Doctrine is that 25mm gun LAVs aren't supposed to kill tanks, that's what the TOW LAVs are for, but they fired on 5 T-72 anyways just to keep them "supressed". The result was 4 of 5 T-72s destroyed! The Hughes chain gun is just 5mm short of the 30mm gun used by the A-10, and there are reports of Bradleys scoring T-72 kills with this gun as well. Doesn't say much for T-72s! The 25 is also good for blinding and forcing tanks to button up because of its range. British No reports of British losses except for the two Warriors lost due to friendly fire. Interestingly, half of the crews survived from both. The Warriors had been criticized because they don't swim (not an issue in the desert), and they don't have anti-tank missles. Bradleys and LAVs bagged a fair number of tanks with their TOWs, so maybe the missle is an issue. The Challenger worked very well, so much so the Russians said they liked it better than the M-1. One tank bagged a T-72 from 5000 meters just for laughs. The Challenger has Chobham armour (the Brits invented the stuff), but it is not an all-new design. French The French AMX-30 had been criticized because of its light armour protection, and gun which is limited to firing HEAT rounds, but they evidently did well against Iraqi T-62s and T-72s. Arthur_T_Hu@Portal.com Sunnyvale CA (Software Engineer - No organization you'd want to hear about)