Iraq in 1990 magically sent back in time to 1943

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-12-23 04:11am

LordShaithis wrote:Saddam browbeats the neighbors into kissing his ass, takes Palestine, and gets filthy rich selling tech to the Allies. (Why the fuck sell anything to the Germans? They lose!)

Palastine is British remember.. Why would he make an enemy of Britian?

Gunhead · Post by **Gunhead** » 2004-12-23 06:35am

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Does anybody know much about the strength of a T-72's armor? Could a WWII era HEAT or AP projectile penetrate the armor? Patton's, IS2's, and Tigers all carried very powerful rifled cannon in late WWII, and T-72 armor isn't anything special, like Chobham armor.

T-72M1 frontal armour laughs off WWII era AP and HEAT rounds.
Actually, a T-62 is something no WWII tank can handle.
T-55 could be penetrated at close range, but not consistently.
You'd have to go for rear or at least flank shots to have a slight chance against any of the three here mentioned, and then you'd have to use 75mm or bigger to stand a chance of penetration. Patton is not a WWII tank btw, M26 Pershing is the last WWII tank from the US. Early 90mm don't penetrate the frontal armour of T-72 T-62 T-55 (actually Iraqi T-55 was usually a chinese T-59 which is the same vehicle, only different desgination.)

-Gunhead

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-23 01:14pm

Gunhead wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote:Does anybody know much about the strength of a T-72's armor? Could a WWII era HEAT or AP projectile penetrate the armor? Patton's, IS2's, and Tigers all carried very powerful rifled cannon in late WWII, and T-72 armor isn't anything special, like Chobham armor.
T-72M1 frontal armour laughs off WWII era AP and HEAT rounds.
Actually, a T-62 is something no WWII tank can handle.
T-55 could be penetrated at close range, but not consistently.
You'd have to go for rear or at least flank shots to have a slight chance against any of the three here mentioned, and then you'd have to use 75mm or bigger to stand a chance of penetration. Patton is not a WWII tank btw, M26 Pershing is the last WWII tank from the US. Early 90mm don't penetrate the frontal armour of T-72 T-62 T-55 (actually Iraqi T-55 was usually a chinese T-59 which is the same vehicle, only different desgination.)

-Gunhead

My mistake, I meant Pershing.

What I'm asking, though, is does anybody know how to calculate the pentrating power of a Pershing, Tiger or IS2 AP or HEAT projectile? A T-55 is nothing more than an improved IS3, after all. You say that a T-72 is a quantum leap over a WWII tank, which I agree with, but I'm still curious exactly how much of a difference there is, and I'd like to know what the penetrating capability of a WWII tank round is vs. a T-72. If nobody knows how to do that or has the inclination to do so, that's fine, because the argument that a T-72's armor is virtually impervious to WWII tank rounds is more than sound.

One other thing, though - a T-72 may be impervious to WWII tank rounds, but it won't be to 250 lb. or 500 lb. bombs dropped from attack aircraft. It's also not impervious to artillery.

Gunhead · Post by **Gunhead** » 2004-12-23 01:50pm

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archi ... pons6.html

Armor penetration curves for a few WWII tank rounds AP.

The Frontal armour on a T-55 is 100mm steel, with sloping it's about 200mm on the hull, turret is about 200mm steel

The T-72 has frontal armour with sloping 550mm-600mm depending on the source. 500mm on the turret. This is actual thickness no special materials have been taken to account. Yes T-72M1 has composite frontal armor.
Almost all penetration data for WWII weapons can be found online, some googling is required. More later.

-Gunhead

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2004-12-23 02:17pm

My question is when the other powers eventually capture/purchase Iraqi technology, what will they think when reading parts of the craft/vehicles that will inevitably say "Made in Taiwan" or "Made in Japan"?

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2004-12-23 02:31pm

According to the following website (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/index.html), the pentration power of anti-tank weapons at 1000 yds is as follows:

British 17 lb Cannon (76mm) APCBC - 162mm
British 17 lb Cannon AP Round - 109mm
British 20 lb Cannon - 280mm
US 76 mm M1A1C - 90mm
US 90mm APCBC - 120mm
US 90mm HVAP - 200mm
German 7.5cm StuK42 L/70 Pzgr 40/42 (HVAP) - 174mm
8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 - 200mm

In other words, in a head to head battle WWII forces would lose to anything other than a T-55, against which they would be at a disadvantage similar to that of Shermans against Tigers.

I still think Iraq would fall apart in a few years due to an inability to maintain their modern equipment.

Gunhead · Post by **Gunhead** » 2004-12-23 02:42pm

Well, T-55 has very little parts that couldn't be produced with WWII tech.
Neither does the T-62, but as whole yes. At least the Iraqi tech level would drop over time due to maintenance issues.

T-55 is not an updated IS-II/III. T-55 is the successor of the T-44 that was built in limited numbers before the end of WWII. So the T-55 is actually more closely related to T-34.

The T-44 never saw action because it would have required a whole new supply chain to operate, and the 34's ISU's and so on we're deemed sufficient until the end of war.

-Gunhead

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-12-23 05:05pm

Considering that Iraq was producing missles right up until the second gulf war - even under sanctions and restrictions - I dont think they have a complete lack of ability to develop arms, and I'm sure if they put their minds to it, they could at least develop indigenous replacements for SAMS or produce new, lower quality but still superior to any WW2 tech anti aircraft weaponry.

I think Saddam would go for a land grab in his immediate vicinity, Iran, Kuwait, perhaps more. He'd easily avoid destruction at the hands of the allies by cutting a deal and providing them with technology.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-12-23 05:44pm

In 1990 Saddam was closer to Nukes than the Manhattan program...

Who Saddam would ally with? Well Stalin is his big idol and the Western powers are his natural enemies, Iraq was occupied by the British in WWII and all the surrounding arab nations were more or less colonized. A quick campaign in his immediate area would gain him 70% of the worlds oil reserves and an alliance with Stalin and his own nukes would shield him from retaliation, and Stalin could be easily bough with what Saddam have to offer.