Osprey Publishing Ltd.

M1 Abrams vs. T-72 Ural: Operation Desert Storm 1991

by  Steven J. Zaloga

Reviewed By  Charles Landrum, IPMS# 26328

MSRP: #17.95 ISBN: 978-1-84603-407-7 Website: Osprey Publishing Ltd. Osprey Publishing initiated a series of books that look at iconic adversaries in conflicts. Number 18 in the Duel Series studies the M-1 Abrams versus the T-72 tanks, specifically in the context of Operation Desert Storm (which was 19 years ago!). The author, Steven Zaloga, is a defense expert and has been writing about Western and Soviet (now Russian) military matters for over 30 years. With a keen interest in military vehicles, there is perhaps no better expert to tackle this subject. Because tensions between the East and West remained “cold” from 1946 to 1989, defense analysts can only speculate how each side might have faired all the way down to the unit level, if the bubble had gone up in Europe and elsewhere. Analysts are left to extrapolate from the clashes around the periphery of the cold way, primarily from conflicts in the Middle East. While the Arab conflicts with Israel showcased Soviet equipment versus western equipment, the closest comparison remains Operation Desert Storm when Iraq, with its Soviet equipment and tactics faced the US Army and Marine Corps and their coalition partners. The tanks had only really entered service in strength in the 1980s; so neither was really tested by the time of Desert Storm. Zaloga is the first to admit that it is an imperfect comparison on many levels and really cannot be extrapolated to understand how an East vs. West fight would have played out. Never-the-less, Desert Storm provides valuable insight into the design and fighting philosophy of two of the main battle tanks that straddled the Iron Curtain. The format and style should be familiar by now and is similar to the other books of the Duel series. Softbound in 7 x 9 1/2 format, it contains 80 pages with 64 color pictures, maps, diagrams and artwork. The chapter breakdown of the book: Introduction. Chronology. Design and Development. Technical Specification. The Combatants. The Strategic Situation. The Campaign. Analysis. This monograph is a detailed look at both tanks, and as such is packed with a wealth of information. It starts with a brief developmental history of both tanks, both of which generated controversy in their respective governments. The coverage is good and Zaloga weaves a good narrative. The next section compares the technical specifications of both tanks. The chapter covers the armor protection, firepower, fire control, ergonomics and mobility of each vehicle. Interestingly, Zaloga draws on Russian sources for survivability estimates of the M1 since the US Army has not released the information. The second half of the book deals with tank operations from the unit level to the Desert Storm Campaign. The chapter titled “Combatants” discusses the training and quality of the US crews in comparison to the Iraqis. In reality there was no comparison for several reasons outlined by Zaloga. The next chapter outlines the Iraqi and Coalition strategic plans regarding Kuwait and then jumps to the tactical level to discuss how the respective tanks were tactically organized in their respective armies. What then follows are brief accounts of the significant armor battles involving the M1 and the T-72. As is well known, the results were one-sided. Zaloga does dispel the myth of the lack of fighting will amongst the Iraqis; this was not the case with the Revolutionary Guards divisions which fought hard but without effect. Steven Zaloga weaves a compelling narrative which balances its treatment of both vehicles. He is careful to point out that the reader cannot discern too much about the effectiveness of the T-72 in the hands of the Iraqis. However, he does lay out several distinct weaknesses of the export T-72 that might not have altered the balance even in well trained and experienced hands. If you have only a mild interest in modern armor, this is a book well work picking up. Special thanks to Osprey Publishing for providing the review copy and to IPMS/USA for allowing me to review it.