Infantry Combat Equipment (non-firearm): Vests, Body Armor, NVGs, etc.

Discussion in 'Army' started by by78, Nov 30, 2017.

  1. TerraN_EmpirE
    Online

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    11,351
    Likes Received:
    9,702
    @Biscuits most of this is again belittling of the Iraqis to make the coalition victory seem small.

    The Iraqi Army was not using Training rounds. I don't know where you heard that. They had AP rounds they were export models but still top of the line for much of the Warsaw pact
    They had an air force but it was beaten, and bombed before it could get to the Air.
    There equipment was on par with the standards of the late 1980s.

    Few nations actually have there own technology neither the PRC or DPRK had indigenous tech in the Korean war.

    The Iraqis had issue and they did "shoot back" particularly there Republican Guard units. Again they faced a force made to defeat Soviet tactics, tech and doctrine. They were often overrun before they had the chance to fight back was the main issue.
     
  2. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    497
    @TerraN_EmpirE

    The coalition had far more and better of everything. Are you seriously comparing the Iraqi army with the PLA??

    I vividly remember seeing a source about Soviets selling training core sabot rounds to Iraq. I can’t find it right now so I’ll retract that claim.

    The point is that Iraqi equipment was extremely poor standard, such as civilian grade steel in tanks etc.

    Overall, the Iraqis did not “shoot back” at scale, only offer sporadic resistance. They were worse than the viets in 79 in that regard, who at least responded to PLA armored charges with cohesive defenses, even if it was ultimately very costly for them.

    Give me one example where Iraqis defended against incoming strikes, executed own strikes on coalition bases, executed gunship/armored charges, shot successful AShM volleys at coalition ships, executed ASW against coalition submarines, tracked coalition carriers with own submarines etc etc

    Probably a bit OC discussion, but the point is, it is completely ridiculous to think Iraq would provide any experience applicable while fighting a normal military, let alone a state of the art one.
     
  3. TerraN_EmpirE
    Online

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    11,351
    Likes Received:
    9,702
    They may have been sold training rounds but all armies need that. What they were using was combat rounds.

    Yes the coalition had better equipment, but then what the Iraqis had was state of the art for the Warsaw pact of the time. Again a lot of this is trying to paint a better condition of Russian Military equipment vs Iraqi. But the fact is they had a modern military.

    The War was a proving ground and lessons from it resulted in massive changes for both the Russians and Chinese who witnessed there equivalent kit get smashed. They then spent the last 20 years seeking to correct perceived issues.

    My point is it was two modern forces with the then state of the art in combat. ODS and the post Soviet conflicts were relivent as they set to forcing changes in Russian and PRC doctrine and technology.
    Post conflict we see investments in new tanks and armor improved gun rounds and upgrades in Mig and SU fighters.
     
    Dfangsaur likes this.
  4. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    497
    No, they did defintely not have state of the art, even for Russia let alone China. Russia was using T-80s at the time and vastly more upgraded T-72 variants, while China was using Type 96s and 99s. The difference is performance is as large as between coalition tanks and Iraqi tanks.

    You did not provide a single example of successful execution of missions on the Iraqi part. Having some imported equipment does not a modern military make. Doctrinally, the Iraqis were far behind even the Vietnamese, who were roundly beaten by PLA even at it’s nadir during the recession years.

    Gulf war just proved something even Sun Tzu knew. If you sit still and wait for your enemy to act, you will lose badly.

    In no way is a handful of Type 59s, T72Ms along with shit cobbled together with civilian steel equivalent to any Chinese or Russian kit, except maybe the ones used in WW2. And the tank force was generally regarded the BEST Iraqi arm, the navy and Air Force (including air defenses) were non existent/50s era.

    What really made the Iraqi army not modern though was it’s hilariously poor command and morale.

    Xu Xiangqian led a roughly technologically equal incursion force into Vietnam, killing 150 000 viet soldiers at the cost of only 6000 men. Peng Dehuai challenged the US army with far weaker kit and about the same number of men, yet blitzed them out of a foreign country in 2 months.

    That’s the difference doctrine makes. US has fought a foe with decent doctrine and poor equipment (Vietnam) and lost, they have fought a foe with poor doctrine and poor equipment and won convincingly (Iraq).

    Neither the US not China has faced a foe with formidable equipment AND doctrine, so we’re on uncharted territory. And target practice like the Iraq war will not help any side deal with those challenges. Even the Sino Vietnam war would be a stretch to call true experience vs a modern foe.
     
  5. TerraN_EmpirE
    Online

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    11,351
    Likes Received:
    9,702
    T80 and T72 were concurrent with each other. The version you are trying to pump is the T80U however I am pointing to the over all era. Not the elite units of Russia alone.
    T80 by the way is older then T72. Even then you have to remember the supply issues of the Russian army had just 3 year later in the first Chechen war. Where T80U tanks suffered heavy losses. Losses due to lack of ERA and armor in urban conflict. As well as perceived cost of operations. So much for that.

    The Iraqis had in service at the time T72 Ural, T72M and T72M1 type 69, Type 59
    Which were top of the line for the era.
    Remember this was 1991. The Type 99 didn’t appear until 2001 type 96 in 1997. The PLA at the time was using type 80 tanks, type 69 and type 59 tanks.

    Next you keep talking about “Civilian steel” and “cobbled together” I can only assume you mean Iraqi made T72s but those again barely amounted to any numbers. The Russians claim 100 built. The Poles say none completed. Either way the end result was not a factor.
    The Iraqi forces was equipped. As to any success?
    Battle of Kafji nearly was one. The Iraqis overran a number of USMC forces and took the city until they were forced back failing to consider a new technology GPS that allowed navigation of the desert and Colilition forces to take the western flank.
    obviously they lost.

    The Command and Moral? The US destroyed Iraqi command and control in the air campaign. Not a failing of lack. The Iraqi Airforces had integrated air command and fairly good fighters but with precision strikes systematically dissecting the command the Iraqi’s forces fell apart.

    As to the Korean fighting. Yes but at that point winter had set in the US chased the DPRK forces all the way to the edge of China in rapid actions out pacing there supply and support. It’s almost exactly what happened to the DPRK forces earlier in the conflict at Pusan.
    The North over ran the South Southern forces and American forces were pushed to Pusan in rapid advances. At Pusan they formed a perimeter and landings started happening the over extended lines of the DPRK forces suddenly were facing fresh units and real resistance and to make it all worse the US landed to the north and now there supply lines were cut.
    US and UN forces started north. A month later they are on the shores of the Yalu. Over extended and now the Chinese join the fight. They in turn cut off units of UN and American forces surrounding some units who in turn fight to break out. a battle that rendered a large number of Chinese units destroyed or no longer effective.
    Both sides extended themselves thin and then faced the consequences.
     
    Dfangsaur likes this.
  6. plawolf
    Offline

    plawolf Brigadier

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,960
    Likes Received:
    11,656
    Come on TE, I know you know your military history.

    To present the Korean War as two modern armies going against each other is just plain ridiculously! The Chinese lacked all naval support, and its Air Force effectively came into being overnight, with very limited training, and was limited largely to intercept missions over friendly territory.

    In terms of ground forces, the gulf was also vast, with the Chinese lacking armour and heavy artillery.

    The fact that the war ended in stalemate was the ultimate proof that it wasn’t equipment that determined the outcome of battles and wars.

    That is a point also stressed in the Gulf War, with American commanders liking to claim that had the two sides switched equipment, they would still have won.

    Say what you will about the combat equipment of the Iraqis, their fighting spirit leaves much to be desired!

    But the Gulf War was a pivotal moment in history by demonstrating what modern air power can do to a traditional army that lacked it and effective air defences. It was after all, what prompted the PLA to start its own military modernisation.

    All recent battles and wars have been largely asymmetrical, as indeed have most battles and wars in history, and there were actually very few ‘fair fights’.

    A few of the less asymmetrical wars, where both sides were using largely similar tech level weapons and had roughly similar troop numbers, at least to start with, are conflicts like the Russian-Georgian war, the Ukraine civil war, and some of the earlier battles against ISIS.

    But I think such battles and wars tend to get passed over in western discussion circles, as the results reflect poorly on their favoured sides. That’s why the likes of the first Gulf War still gets so much attention.
     
  7. TerraN_EmpirE
    Online

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    11,351
    Likes Received:
    9,702
    I am not trying to @Biscuits seems to be trying for that point..
    The PLA of the time was built on infantry force.
    I am saying the Iraqi’s were however a modern army.
    . But claiming it was all about the soldier factors out the numbers of losses taken by the Chinese and North Koreans to achieve those slim victories.
     
  8. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    780
    Likes Received:
    737
    They had AP rounds sure. They were good enough for the targets the Iraqis faced in their theater of operations which mainly consisted of previous generation tanks like the British Centurion in Iranian service. That is the conflict Iraq was modeled to fight after all. What they did not have was tungsten or depleted uranium rounds, which did exist in Soviet stocks, the AP rounds were useless against Chobbam ceramic armor. The T-72 at its introduction had no ceramic armor, laser-rangefinders, or electronic fire control. That was only included with the T-72A and later variants. Iraq did not have T-72As. The T-72A was introduced in the Soviet Union in 1979.

    So, sure, it was on par with the standards of the late 1980s. In the Gulf region. Not leading edge even by Soviet standards of the early 1980s.
    A lot of people also forget that the T-72 was never the tank used in the Soviet main guards divisions, like the 1st guards units which guard Moscow. These used T-80 tanks. Which all had composite armor plates on a wider surface than even the T-72A.

    Also in the first Gulf War in 1991 the T-72s were mostly not used as they were kept back in Iraq to protect the government. Most of the attacks were done with Russian or Chinese vehicles of the T-62 or T-54 type. Those were all it took to invade Kuwait. I think there were only one or two clashes with T-72s.

    One could argue that the USA did have superiority in terms of gun stabilization, communications, or modern night vision systems. That much is true.
    But no the Iraqi army was not up to Soviet Army standards of the early 1980s. Maybe Warsaw Pact standards at best. In the early 1980s.

    You are correct that the speed of their destruction was a shock both to the Russians and the Chinese. Which were one of Iraq's main weapons suppliers. Yet remember that in the Yugoslav Wars the US did not ever send their tanks in. Even got one of their precious stealth aircraft downed by a geriatric air defense system. Many years later.
     
    #358 gelgoog, Feb 5, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
    Biscuits likes this.
  9. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    780
    Likes Received:
    737
    With regards to the Chechen Wars. The first incursion was done with troops with poor training and morale. I think the equipment was the least of their problems.

    We have seen Saudis lose against Houtis in Yemen despite having M1A2s.
     
    Biscuits likes this.
  10. FriedRiceNSpice
    Offline

    FriedRiceNSpice Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,544
    Likes Received:
    72
    Dessert Storm is not a fair comparison in any way shape or form. Comparing actual US led coalition to Iraqis fielding some imported Russian systems is an apples to oranges comparison. For a better comparison use the Iran Iraq war which approximates US and Soviet equipment of comparable era and quality, with more of the other more important variables held constant.
     
    N00813 and Biscuits like this.
Loading...

Share This Page