Victory in '91 with inferior weapons?

At the time of the 1991 Gulf victory--probably the most lopsided in history--some Americans insisted their success wasn't mainly due to superior weapons e.g. the M1 vs monkey model T-72. Stressing Iraqi incompetence, they said they could've beaten the Iraqis even had the weapons been swapped.
I'm curious about one thing: How inferior would US weapons have had to be before the Iraqis could've won, or at least stalemated the coalition? What would've happened if for example, US forces were equipped with Italian weapons of c 1940-41, including the M13 ("self propelled coffin")?
 

Ak-84

Banned
The US Military of 1945 would have had little chance against the 1991 Iraqi Military, nevermind the 1941 Italian Military.

Modern weapons are almost a different planet from WW2 ones.
Frankly, the US's technological advantage was way too great. Every time the Iraqis put up a fight, they got slaughtered. And contrary to popular opinion, the Iraqis did perform well at times, Iraqi divisions read the coalition left hook and turned to face them, but they had little chance against an adversary which controlled the air and which had AFV which could hit a tank first time at 1500-2000 m.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I'm not so sure about that. In 1991, Iraq actually had a professional military. Not only that, but it was a rarity in the Middle East in that it WASN'T focused soley you regime protection. As AK pointed out, there were a number of instances where the Iraqi Army reacted well and performed credibly under fire. While they weren't trained up to US or NATO standards, they were well trained.

There were several severe handicaps though that they were fighting under. First, was NATO's completely unchallenged Air Dominance. CAS was heavy, often and accurate. The NATO air forces had so utterly destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and air defense capabilities, that they literally went "Tank Plinking." Meaning they didn't have any other targets, so they started dropping laser guided bombs onto individual tanks. They were literally that out of targets.

And that ties into the second issue. Iraqi divisions were reaching the front already suffering from 20-50% or more attrition due to air attacks. Considering most militaries will pull a unit out of the line at 30% attrition, that fact can't be over stated.

And finally, their armor. The export model T-72s they were saddled with were absolute garbage. Their armor was solely RHA. And the American APFSDS can punch through that the long way without even slowing down. Then there's the ammo they were issued. It was basically worthless. I've read a story, don't know if it's true, though I'm inclined to believe it, that a T-72 in one battle managed to close to within 50 yards of an M1. The -72 fired point blank into the Abrams and failed to penetrate the armor. If your armor and ammunition is that defective, it really makes fighting pointless once you realize it.
 
I'm not so sure about that. In 1991, Iraq actually had a professional military. Not only that, but it was a rarity in the Middle East in that it WASN'T focused soley you regime protection. As AK pointed out, there were a number of instances where the Iraqi Army reacted well and performed credibly under fire. While they weren't trained up to US or NATO standards, they were well trained.

From what I've read, they didn't even know how to use the ranging equipment on their T-72s. It was bad enough that their ammo couldn't penetrate M1 front armor, but all too often, they couldn't even hit any target. If the crews just couldn't use their laser rangefinders they should've gotten rid of them and used conventional ones.

And that ties into the second issue. Iraqi divisions were reaching the front already suffering from 20-50% or more attrition due to air attacks. Considering most militaries will pull a unit out of the line at 30% attrition, that fact can't be over stated.

Pollack wrote that attrition was severe in frontline infantry units, not so bad for those farther away.

And finally, their armor. The export model T-72s they were saddled with were absolute garbage. Their armor was solely RHA. And the American APFSDS can punch through that the long way without even slowing down. Then there's the ammo they were issued. It was basically worthless. I've read a story, don't know if it's true, though I'm inclined to believe it, that a T-72 in one battle managed to close to within 50 yards of an M1. The -72 fired point blank into the Abrams and failed to penetrate the armor. If your armor and ammunition is that defective, it really makes fighting pointless once you realize it.

I heard that story too. Still, a cleverer enemy might've figured out ways to get around some of these difficulties. They might've tried digging their tanks in deeper and covering them with some kind of camo (in part to avoid soaking up the hot sun during the day making them visible to passive IR systems at night). Then when coalition tanks passed their position, they could've come out of the holes and attacked from the rear or sides where M1 armor was weaker. Good, imaginative leadership, willing to take initiatives (sadly lacking in most arab armies) might've accomplished something.
 
The US Military of 1945 would have had little chance against the 1991 Iraqi Military

I think they would've had a good chance. A Sherman may be, in theory, a lot weaker than a monkey model T-72. But what's the use of having the latter if the crews just don't know how to use its complicated ranging system? I saw a vid in which US Bradleys approached several dug in T-72s and destroyed at least two without incurring return fire.... Pathetic performance said much about the quality of personnel as well as weapons.
 
The quality of some Iraqi units was decent, however the bulk of them had enlisted draftees who had little training and less motivation, led by officers who would have been fragged by their senior NCOs in any decent army. Their combat engineers were consider pretty good. Overall the problem was their tactics were crap, and unit cohesion pretty poor with few exceptions. Like many authoritarian regimes, military leadership was frequently shuffled to make sure no general or colonel had a cohesive group of troops who were loyal to him, which screwed up unit capabilities. Also the rule was you did not see long serving professional NCOs except in certain units, another quality killer.

IMHO had the equipment been swapped, the USA would have still come out on top but at a higher cost. The training deficiencies of the average Iraqi soldier would actually mean that have "better" equipment would make it worse for them. The more tech advanced equipment you have, the more you depend on good training for the average grunt or armor crewman to operate and use that equipment, let alone maintain it in the field. The Iraqis were not cowards, and could be stubborn in defense, but compared to US forces were a mob and a well armed mob does not succeed over trained troops unless the numbers are unrealistically slanted.
 
I think they would've had a good chance. A Sherman may be, in theory, a lot weaker than a monkey model T-72. But what's the use of having the latter if the crews just don't know how to use its complicated ranging system? I saw a vid in which US Bradleys approached several dug in T-72s and destroyed at least two without incurring return fire.... Pathetic performance said much about the quality of personnel as well as weapons.
I'd say Vietnam level weapons would have seen American troops pulling out a bloody victory. 1945 level weapons would have seen American public will crumple with the level of losses.
 
First, was NATO's completely unchallenged Air Dominance. CAS was heavy, often and accurate. The NATO air forces had so utterly destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and air defense capabilities, that they literally went "Tank Plinking." Meaning they didn't have any other targets, so they started dropping laser guided bombs onto individual tanks. They were literally that out of targets.
Its one thing talking about M4s v T72 but nobody is talking about P51 v Mig29s.....

Even with Vietnam level of aircraft would the second rate but modern Iraqi jets not be to much to gain air supremacy does that not change it hugely? What % of casualties where caused by ground v air attack?
 
1945 USA would do it,with heavy losses though. The sheer incompetence of the iraqis is one of the rare things in history that can't actually be overstated. This are the guys which,only shortly prior in the Iraq-Iran War,got their heavy armoured divisions with fire and air support out of the wazoo stalemated and ocassionally pushed back by poorly equipped light infantry.

the one and only "strength" of the iraqy army was that its high command generally could whip up a pretty good,extremly detailled battle plan,and if they forced their troops to follow it slavischly,get ok results for a day or so. this works against an small enemy like kuwait,but otherwise no plan survives contact with the enemy with predictable results like entire artillery battallions pounding empty desert or even small units refusing to do tactical manouvers without explizit command from the highest leadership levels.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Its one thing talking about M4s v T72 but nobody is talking about P51 v Mig29s.....

Even with Vietnam level of aircraft would the second rate but modern Iraqi jets not be to much to gain air supremacy does that not change it hugely? What % of casualties where caused by ground v air attack?
With WWII aircraft? Iraq wins in a ROFL curbstomp. With Vietnam era aircraft? I think NATO wins. Aircraft performance was close enough at that point that the superior training of NATO would make the difference
 
Last edited:
1945 USA would do it,with heavy losses though. The sheer incompetence of the iraqis is one of the rare things in history that can't actually be overstated. This are the guys which,only shortly prior in the Iraq-Iran War,got their heavy armoured divisions with fire and air support out of the wazoo stalemated and ocassionally pushed back by poorly equipped light infantry.

A bit of an exaggeration. The infantry had antitank weapons, and Iran had Chieftans and other tanks.

the one and only "strength" of the iraqy army was that its high command generally could whip up a pretty good,extremly detailled battle plan,and if they forced their troops to follow it slavischly,get ok results for a day or so. this works against an small enemy like kuwait...

It worked against Iran in '88. The '91 war was different though because the coalition had the initiative.
 
Top