Why were the losses in the Battle of Norfolk so lopsided?
score:35
The ongoing arms race in armored warfare between defensive measures and offensive weapons generally means that a given tank is able to resist the weapons of the previous generation and, in turn, be able to defeat the armor of the previous generation.
In the 1991 Gulf War, while the coalition forces had the Abrams and Challenger MBTs (which were best-of-breed at the time), the Iraqi army was largely equiped with previous generation Chinese type-69 and Soviet T-55 and T-62 tanks. These export-market tanks also lacked the more sophisticated night-fighting and range-finding equipment found on the Soviet Army machines. The small numbers of newer T-72 tanks, which were in the possession of the Republican Guard, were also export models that lacked the explosive reactive armor of the Soviet models. Had they possessed this, they might have fared better.
As a consequence, the Iraqis had to get lucky to get a kill, whereas the coalition tanks could destroy an opponent with almost any clean hit. Add to that the ability of the better trained coalitions crews to fire faster (and on the move) and the low morale of the Iraqi crews (who often abandoned their vehicles prior to being engaged) and the results don't seem so strange.
Upvote:-4
I would imagine the coalition's TOTAL air superiority might have come in to play here. Undefended tanks on the ground would be easy pickings for a squadron of A-10 Warthogs (aka "Tank Busters")
Upvote:11
Although it isn't a complete answer to your question, you can gain some insight into the lopsidedness of this and other similar confrontations by reading this analysis:
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
The gist of the article is that there is a rather large disconnect in Arabic armies' culture. Officers and enlisted men are seen in a different caste-like system without much mutual respect.
Which trickles down to training. Information tends to be hoarded rather than spread around freely. The article references an American liaison who handed out training manuals to enlisted men, then the officers followed and collected them. The reason being - if you are the only one who knows how to work a given machine or fix a particular widget, it increases your worth. American tank crews are the exact opposite, each trained to understand and take the initiative and take over any other given station if that station should become unmanned.
This adds up to problems with distrust, decision making, and inability to take the initiative. There is definitely a difference between technology, but if you add to that the fact that Arabic armies suffer from these paralyzing deficits it's no small wonder why the Iraqi tanks just basically sat there and took it.
Upvote:23
According to AAR reports, the losses the Coalition took in this battle were almost all friendly fire incidents.
Same AARs indicate that Coalition forces had decisive advantage in:
- Effective range - on average American tanks could destroy Iraqi T-72 at twice the distance of the Russian-built tanks (~2km), while virtually none of the hits scored on Americans managed to penetrate, which means that
- Protection - technological advantage of armor of the COalition tanks over Iraqi was also very big. One might point out that the Russian built tanks lacked the reactive armor, but so were Abrams. Yet when T-72 took hit, the round could penetrate earthen berm the tank was hiding behind and still go through and through the tank, stopping in the berm on the other side (there are pictures floating on the internet documenting this). Going the other way - Iraqis could not, despite supposedly better guns (including larger caliber), succesfuly penetrate Abrams' hide with direct hits even well within their effective range. It was actually so bad that Russian AT missiles also proved to be equally ineffective.
- Superior fire control - it's one thing to have the maximum effective range of the Abrams tank in the vincinity of 4km, but you have to hit the target at that range. FC hardware and software still has to be pretty good to make it happen.
SO to answer your questions: Iraqis did fought well and could engage Americans, but being completely outclassed in equipment department their numerical advantage was virtually immaterial. So what if they could hit american tanks if the shots simply bounced?
More post
- 📝 Was Celtic society promiscuous?
- 📝 Can someone give me an example of stimulus diffusion from history?
- 📝 Did USSR used tactics learned during the winter war against Germany?
- 📝 Were firearms used by the farmers for intimidation in the penny auctions during the Great Depression?
- 📝 When did Latin cease to be an important language for international scholarly communication?
- 📝 Did Hitler brag about or downplay his war experiences in WW I in appealing to 1932 voters?
- 📝 How did ancient cultures identify a new moon when it can never be seen?
- 📝 The importance of sugar plantations
- 📝 Is there a formal ontology for documenting historical timelines?
- 📝 Why was the Gilgamesh flood tablet such a sensation?
- 📝 Is the name of Askandra Village, Rajasthan related to Alexander the Great?
- 📝 How many soldiers were present at the charge down Little Round Top?
- 📝 Inviting rulers vs taking power
- 📝 Which emperor tried to command the tides?
- 📝 Can you help identify this European military uniform?
- 📝 What was the first college in an English-speaking country to use Latin in their motto?
- 📝 How did Maximilien de Robespierre lose control of his Reign of Terror and die by the guillotine?
- 📝 Does the appearance of cremation support the Aryan Migration theory?
- 📝 Are there any histories of indigenous Americans who were taken to Europe?
- 📝 Was the Athenian generals' trial after Arginusae a political one?
- 📝 Did Belgian detectives wear special shoes in 1939?
- 📝 When did dueling with weapons become socially unacceptable in the western world?
- 📝 Why in English do we say "Tsar of all (the) Russias"?
- 📝 How do the kings and important figures in history get the titles?
- 📝 Did the Austrians win a "great victory" at Belgrade in 1738?
- 📝 What did squires do in the middle of a medieval battle?
- 📝 Why were Roman gladiators "expensive"?
- 📝 Why does the First World War (WW I) play such a minor role today compared to Second World War (WW II)?
- 📝 Valid source of Greek historical periods , in a URL
- 📝 Are there any books solely about the Umayyad Invasion of Gaul?
Source: stackoverflow.com
Search Posts
Related post
- 📝 Why were the losses in the Battle of Norfolk so lopsided?
- 📝 Why were Civil War battle techniques so bloody, if the US had learned guerrilla fighting in the Revolutionary War?
- 📝 Why were Japanese submarines not able to defend in the Battle of the Philippine Sea?
- 📝 Why were Japanese escort ships not numerous at the battle of Bismarck Sea?
- 📝 Why were the Romans unable to conquer Germania?
- 📝 Why were so many more Jewish men than Jewish women killed during the Holocaust?
- 📝 Why were the Allies so much better cryptanalysts?
- 📝 Why were helmets and other body armour not commonplace in the 1800s?
- 📝 ‘Avoid sleeping on your back’ & ‘breathe in toilet smells’ were seen as precautions against the Black Death. Why did doctors think these would work?
- 📝 Why were the West African islands uninhabited?
- 📝 Why were the drawings of Colossus burnt after WW2 and why was its very existence "of course" kept secret?
- 📝 Why were Albanians the only nation in the Balkans who converted to Islam during the Ottoman occupation?
- 📝 Why didn't Hannibal attack Rome after the Battle of Cannae?
- 📝 Why were British ships not of the same quality as French and Spanish ships until the latter part of the 18th century?
- 📝 Which battle was the most lopsided result in terms of casualties?
- 📝 Why were nomadic tribes (like the Mongols) from the Eurasian steppes a much reduced threat from the 15th century onwards?
- 📝 Why were there no agricultural, city-state forming civilizations in the Ice Age?
- 📝 Why were Royal Navy ships forbidden to attack the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo in Argentinian waters?
- 📝 Why were the Irish exempt from conscription during WWI?
- 📝 Why were slave owners even offered compensation via the 1837 Act if they'd lost the power in parliament to stop abolition in 1833?
- 📝 Why were there so few American deaths in the Bataan Death March?
- 📝 Why were troops with bayonets often effective against enemy cavalry even though the bayonet was a "secondary" weapon?
- 📝 Why were so many of the earliest banks founded by cloth merchants?
- 📝 Why were the Germans and Russians so fixated on an unlikely "separate peace" in 1945?
- 📝 Why were kitchen work surfaces in Sweden apparently so low before the 1950s or so?
- 📝 Why were the British so reluctant to allow Jewish migration to Palestine?
- 📝 Why were battles massed until the late 1800s?
- 📝 The WWI Christmas truce of 1914 resulted in no consequences, in spite of clear warnings against such beforehand - why were there no courts-martial?
- 📝 Why did the German air force lose experienced pilots faster than the Allies, even though they were defending their home airspace?
- 📝 Why were people from the Asian Steppes able to militarily dominate Europeans on a repeated basis?