Why were the losses in the Battle of Norfolk so lopsided?

score:35

Accepted answer

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:

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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

Search Posts

Related post