Iraq circa 1991 versus Germany circa 1941

Because I need a dose of sense after too much stupidity, Iraq immediately prior to the Coalition air war (so early January) 1991 is placed geolographically next door to Nazi Germany circa 1941, immediately prior to the invasion of the USSR. However, to even things up somewhat, all 1941 German equipment is directly replaced with its 1945 equivalent (so Panzer III's and IV's become Panthers, Tigers Konigstigers, etc etc).

Then they slug it out. Nothing else will interfere.

How do things go?

 

Hmmmmmm. Well, Germany's air force will get slaughtered, that much is for sure. But they have a much higher manufacturing base and ability to absorb losses than Iraq. But Iraq still has technology on its side, so I say they take it narrowly.

 

Iraq could blitzkrieg them with T-72's, which would eat alive any tank the Nazis had.

This is to say nothing of the IAF. Foxbats! Anyone for some mach 3 Pwnitude... The Nazis would probably just give up. Especially if the Iraqis managed to kill Hitler.

 

This is not even remotely even. The Wehrmacht would get utterly owned, 1945 German weaponry is a joke compared to what Iraq had.

Tanks

A Konigstiger (ie. the "best"- a joke in terms of mobility and reliability but still) would be lucky to penetrate a T-62, never mind a T-72. We're alsotalking smoothbore high-velocity 115mm guns versus 88mm peashooters. Superior fire control technology would make the Germans look blind by comparison. And at night? The Iraqis would be on a rampage with their far superior night sights.

Infantry

Mechanized Iraqi infantry with lethal anti-tank capability even with their main guns (ie. BMPs etc) versus not even wheel-mobile German infantry (only a small minority of German infantry had even trucks, never mind half-tracks that BMPs make look like a joke ...)

Nevermind AKs, PKMs, RPKs, RPG-7s, SVDs and what not versus a majority of Kar 98Ks, MG42s, MP 40s, Panzerfausts/Schreks and a miniscule number of Stg 44s?

Air Force

Iraq would have total, overwhelming air superiority and by-comparison precise attack/ interdiction capability. The Luftwaffe would be completely annihilated both by Iraqi MiGs and their air defence network- heck, ZSU-23 Shilkas would take the biggest toll. The only losses Iraq would conceivably take are Su-25s, and even then it'd be hardly any.

Artillery

The importance of this can't be overstated. Iraq's got better, longer-ranged firepower across the board (including IIRC South African G5s)- and the command and control fire-control systems to make them accurate as all hell. They also IIRC had counter-fire radars.

I could go on, but this is utter ownage. The Nazis are totally fucked.

 

The Iraqis couldn't even blitzkreig Iranian martyrs armed only with smallarms.

They'll slug a few kilometers into the Reich, then dig in and call it a success.

 

Even though Iraq's equipment is superior remember, its ran by idiots. Even with chemical weapon attacks, Iraq's military couldn't quite push the Iranians out of southern Basra during the Iran-Iraq War.

The IRAF however will kick ass. Its pilots were actually quite skilled from what I read pulling off some complex missions in the war with Iran.

 

Since this is the '91 airforce it'll do OK, but even at its height in '88 its sortie rate sucked, and co-operation with the ground forces was poor and only worked well in static extensively pre-planned battles. One assumes they'll be a lot more agressive against Germany than they were against Iran, but they'll still be constrained by their rigid doctrine.

And in the German's favour they have a LOT of planes, and the Iraqis were never very good at air to air. German strike planes will take continual losses, but they'll get through. The Iraqis were always best at strategic raids, but the damage they can do to Germany will pale beside that of the historical allied airforces.

 

Nah, they pulled of an interesting stunt or two...but the Iraqi airforce was just as braindead as the rest of their military. The saving grace Iraq had, was it's pretty decent Soviet-style air defense network.

 

It's not like you need to be very good at air to air when your enemy is chugging along in WW2 prop-fighters and you're in MiG-23s and MiG-29s (for example). It'd be a total turkey shoot.

By sheer numbers I'm sure they will get past Iraqi CAPs- but unfortunately for them the air defences will tear them apart mercilessly. It'd be the biggest spanking in air war history. Take what happened to the Israeli AF when they first encountered ZSU-23 Shilkas and SA-6s and multiply that by ... 1,000 or something.

Heck, what am I saying, even the radar-directed S-60 57mm AA guns in the Iraqi's have will utterly assrape them.

True, if only for their lack of a real strategic bomber force (their few bombers will be largely untouchable though).

 

Iraq's air defence network wasn't "Soviet style"- designated "KARI", it was mostly developed (IIRC) by the French, and though it had some Soviet weaponry in that network that's about as far as it went.

Way too static and obsolete to survive a the Coalition 1991 offensive or course.

Same goes for their air defence units that were supposed to deploy along with the army. The Soviet system is very particular and well regimented and the Iraqis didn't have all the pieces they were supposed to.

 

Shooting down a Stuka or a FW-190 in a MiG-23 might actually be very difficult. Firstly the Iraqis had older missiles, and their heatseekers would have serious trouble locking up a piston engined plane. Then a guns solution can actually be very difficult against a target flying so slowly - there's a very limited time in which to take the shot since there's no way the MiG can throttle back that far and still retain control. Also WWII planes had very tight turning radii compared to modern jets, so if the Germans saw the Iraqis coming they could jink hard to throw off their aim.

This wouldn't be a serious problem for well trained pilots, but most Iraqi pilots performed very poorly in air to air. Thus I wouldn't expect the number of kills they might achieve against the Luftwaffe to be enough to cripple it. At Iran-Iraq war sortie rates, they just won't be flying enough, or getting enough kills in each sortie, to really dent Luftwaffe numbers.

 

Probably, but then again, their R-23s wouldn't so much- at close range, I can't image a prop-fighter would have much chance against any SARH missile.

True, but it only reduces their massive disadvantage by so much- every Iraqi fighter in the arsenal could simply cruise high, then boom and zoom fighters at their leisure. Even if they start off sucking at it, I imagine with enough practice and the fact that they can do so with impunity, their pilots would become quite good at it.

I just had an evil idea- Su-25s doing air-to-air work (like the ones Peru uses to shoot down drug planes)

True that- I'd expect the AD network to take the heaviest toll.

 

It doesn't take a genius to shoot down slow little piston planes with a jet. The migs will outclimb, outrun, and have a FAR higher ceiling.
Even if the Iraqis don't get things done the first mission... their ability to survive the fight will allow them to learn to fight the slow targets. The migs'll just fly 600 MPH figure eights the whole time. Heatseekers will torch bombers... even with a piston, 500 degree exhaust sticks out on infrared. And the guns outrange the prop aircraft's weapons. If the Iraqi pilots have enough skill to get their planes safely in the air, they'll have enough rudimentary flying skill to hit slow moving targets. Just swoop, pass, repeat.

 

Iraqi Air Force in 1990

Same as 1991 of course.

The most optimal fighters for the job I see in the list are:

J-6 (Chinese MiG-19 cockpit)
Mirage F-1 EQ/BQ
Su-25
MiG-29
L-29
L-39

But the MiG-21s and MiG-23s would be very lethal as well, if perhaps a little too fast. The MiG-25 has no gun unfortunately. However, if Iraq has MiG-25RB variants, they'd have a very fast supersonic recon/bomber.

Looking at their air defence equipment, their KS-19 100mm AA guns would be killers (radar guided of course).

 

The large number of RPG-7's in the Iraqi inventory would play merry hell with the German tank forces as well.

 

of course, the big thing the Germans have is motivation and a rather more robust doctrine. The Iraqis never conducted much in the way of maneuver, and their operational timescales were WW1. They also had very poor moral.

 

They were terrible at strategy! Absolutely atrocious! The plan for invading Iran was drafted in about a week and consisted of little more than "line up on the border and march East until you run out of gas." (which happened pretty quickly, because there was virtually no organized logistic support).

And they weren't any better in '91. One of their main strategic aims was to seize Kuwait's gold to pay off Iraq's war debt - except no one checked to see if Kuwait even HAD vast stocks of gold (it didn't). Then their entire defence uttterly ignored Coalition capabilities, and asumed a few days of air attack followed by a direct assault against their defences.

The Iraqis repeatedly proved themselves some of the poorest strategists of the 20th century.

 

There will be a serious accuracy issue among Iraqi tankers especially at long-range gunnery. During the Desert Storm, a Kuwaiti military personnel (He was a tanker too) who stayed behind in his homeland woth his family, he kept in contact with the Coalition via telephone reporting the findings on Iraqi military activities. He reported that he was looking at a company of Iraqi tanks took up the place at the park near his apartment. To his surprise, he observed that Iraqis didn't even bother zeroing or boresighting their tanks to ensure accuracy!

That would explain why most of the time shots landed short of their targets or missed them wildly.

 

Is boresighting like looking through the scope of a sniper rifle? Cause a sniper who didn't do that wouldn't be that accurate.

 

More like it, it is a procedure to align the gun to the gunner's sight or fire control system.

I think I'll let Thanatos explain this one to you much better than me since he's a tanker in real life after all.

 

I dunno, the Kuwaitis are often full of shit where Iraq and Iraqis are concerned. From what I've read in battle reports, if Coalition forces actually came into range Iraqi tankers were actually pretty good at gunnery. Their problem was they couldn't see as far as the Coalition could (so firing at the same ranges the M1s fired at meant they were shooting blind), and their shells sucked. That, and they didn't manuever. They just sat in static positions as the Coalition manuevered around them, even when they were being badly outflanked.

There was one account by an M1 crew I read where they engaged three T-72s at about 1,500 meters. Every single shot fired in the engagement hit, including three by the M1 and five by the Iraqis. It's just that every single Iraqi shot bounced off, while every single American shot penetrated and killed.

 

To be blunt, I think allot of people utterly ignore that the technically disparity is way greater in this sort of scenario than it usually has been historically. Historically when one side does has a vast technology advantage, I.E. European powers against much of the world in the 19th century, its actually extremely decisive. In most modern conflicts when one side is "out teched" at least they do have certain key weapons such as RPGs to help even the score somewhat. I think the reality is people are vastly underrating Iraq in this scenario.