Talk:Lion of Babylon tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lion of Babylon tank article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Overall make-up

In my opinion this page should be cleaned up, especially the scans, if they're kept at all, should be moved to sources.The page is very unorganized, compared to other pages describing tanks. I suggest structuring it into Production, Features(armor, gun, engine and other equipment) and then to move on to its history in the Gulf War. As well I doubt the sense of conclusion, this sounds like some kind of personal study. IF this should be I'd place it at the end of the article. This kind of conclusions and speculations also appears at the end of the "vs the M1 Abrams"

Also added a headline for your discussion ;-)--Scalestor 21:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] General Discussion

Does this tank even exist? The only place I have ever read about this tank are forums on the internet and this article. I have never seen an official document from the US DoD or any other government that mentions this tank. And when I was in the US Army, preparing for deployment to Iraq I never heard about "Lion of Babylon" tank. Since I worked in the S-2 it was part of my job to know about the enemy weapons systems and I never heard of this.

Unless there are links added that prove this tank existed then this article should be deleted. If it does exist, it still needs links documenting the claims about it's armor and how it survived hits from TOW and Javelin missiles. DarthJesus 02:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted all of the external references. One was a dead link, one was a site dealing with Gulf War syndrome which has no relation to this article, the steel-beasts link was not related either and was advertising, the link about the Battle for Baghdad Airport doesn't mention the Lion of Babylon tank, and the other site does not mention the tank either. So basically all of them were un-related to the article. DarthJesus 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you red the article?. Have you red that the Lion of Babylon was a t-72 copy, and NOT an original design?. O.K., you think that the article should be deleted, but following the same judgment, any reference about the Yugoslav M-84, as another T-72 locally-built version, also should be deleted. Any article about the Zero WWII fighter must be erased too, since this was just an Allied codename for a japanese plane that actually NEVER existed, its original name being A6M Zeke. Do you know how many Scud missiles fired Saddam in 1991?. NONE. The ballistic missiles launched by Iraq were modified Scuds, the Al-Hussayn, whose range doubles that of the original soviet weapon. The US Army tends to use WWII or Cold War names for some weapons in order to avoid confussion and simplified the identification of the foe's assets; that's the reason behind the few references you have found to this tank as Lion of Babylon. They often mention just the Republican Guard's T-72. You can title this article Iraqi-built T-72 if you like, but this doesn't change a iota about the facts described here; that the iraqis assembled, modified and used in combat a soviet type of MBT. In the other hand, I agree with you about the external references, these were too general; for the reader is enough with the encrypted notes and bibliographical sources. Best Regards.

DagosNavy

  • Did you read what I said? I said unless there are links provided that prove it existed then it should be deleted. So far you have provided absolutely no links at all that mention that Iraq manufactured it's own tanks. None. I don't care about the other, weapons you mentioned, I only care about this one. So unless you provide a link that says Iraq manufactured it's own T-72's then this article should be deleted. DarthJesus 05:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just click the first encrypted note in the article about the Taji steel plant and the spare parts imported from Poland. There is a CLEAR reference to the iraqis ASSEMBLING T-72 (this wiki article never said the iraqis MADE a complete line of production).

If you are too busy to click the note, to open the link and then search the paragraph, I will transcribe it for you: And in a separate production unit built by Kloeckner Industries of West Germany, Iraqi tanks were being rebuilt. In addition to retrofitting older T-54 and T-62, Iraqi officials say they began to assembly the newer T-72 in Taji in early 1989, in a license agreement signed with Bumar-Labedy of Poland. They called the new tank the Asad Babil, or Lion of Babylon. http://www.kentimmerman.com/news/tdl16.htm#prof If you are still full of doubts, there is another link, this one supported by two reliable sources I guess you must know: CNN and Jane's World Armies. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/iraq/equipment/

DagosNavy


Ok you've done the minimum: provided verifiable proof that the Iraqi's did build T-72's. Now we need links proving your claims that the Iraqi-built T-72's were inferior to what the Russians were building, that there were T-72's surviving hits from TOW and Javelin missiles and that the Iraqi's were using old, inferior ammunition. I've heard these claims many, many times on various forums across the internet, but we need verifiable proof that they are true before you can put them into this article. DarthJesus 04:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'am glad you did agree that the iraqi tank really existed and was not just a wild fantasy of my mind. I added two bibliographical sources where i found the data about the basic T-72 armour. I guess that's the same for the iraqi version.

Additionally, I attached both an encrypted link and a bibliographical note referring to a couple of cases where the Lion of Babylon armour defeated two American large shaped charged weapons. On the other hand, I must concede that there were some confusion about Javelins bouncing off any Iraqi armored vehicle; this came from a misreading of the article about Baghdad Airport's Battle. But one of the sources (Scales) suggest that, previously to the TF 1-37 assault against Tawakalna (1991), some T-72 survived Hellfire strikes, even becoming mobility kills. So, I did change the text in the appropriated form.

As for the differences between the basic model and that built in Iraq, you can just go to the wiki article about the different types of T-72s. One of the advantages over the M1as, had the iraqis built or import the latest version of the tank (in 1990), it would had been the AT-11 Svir gun-fired AT missile, capable of matching the range of the 120-mm sabot round. They would be also fitted with night-thermal vision and the ultimate russian computerized laser range-finder. You must also noticed that the training of the iraqi tank crews was poor in comparison with that of the soviet ones.

DagosNavy

It was common for the export version of T-54/55 and T-72 tanks to be lacking some features, like NBC protection, or the most up-to-date armour. All of the tanks firing ATGMs through the gun were produced in versions lacking the feature (e.g. T-72B1 is a T-72 without ATGM), and I think these were typically the ones exported.
The Iraqi T-72 is just a simple model of T-72, but since there's so much written here, it's definitely appropriate to have a separate article under the Iraqi name. —Michael Z. 2006-07-17 16:53 Z

[edit] Reactive Armor

Are you sure the Iraqi tanks had reactive armor? Ive never seen a photo of that and I don't believe the Iraqi's ever bought it. DarthJesus 16:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • There is a well-known example of that: a modified T-55 called Enigma by coalition sources. Its appliquè armor defeated several shaped charge's hits before being stopped by helicopter strike, late Feb 1991. This is the link to some pics of this tank: http://tanxheaven.com/t55enigma/t55enigmapic.htm

I acknowledge that I can't assure you that all the Asad Babils were fitted with reactives, so I´ve introduced the subsequent changes to the text. I also added a brief paragraph in the Armor section about how the iraqis could have obtained ERA (possibly its first Kontakt version) from the Polish T-72m1 (Source: Jane's Armor & Artillery. 1988/89). Jane's includes it in the Polish version for export (remember the Iraqi T-72s parts for assembling were provided by a Polish company), but I agree with you, I've also never seen an Iraqi T-72's photo showing ERA. After all, it's possible that the standard T-72 frontal armour was capable of defeating American ATGMs by itself. DagosNavy

DagosNavy 00:55, August 9 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why Challenger 1 and Iranian MBTs are not included

Only talking about combat performance compared to the M1 and Bradley seems a little American centric. Did it ever encouter the Challenger? Did it see combat during the Iran-Iraq war? 145.253.108.22 11:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


  • It seems highly improbable that the Challenger 1 engaged Iraqi Armored forces equipped with T-72s in Desert Storm, since the Brit. 1st Armoured Division crossed the southern section of the Iraq-Kuwait border, where were deployed only regular Iraqi Army units displaying Type-69s and T-62. The same thing for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

As for the Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988), as expressed in the article, the refurbished and up-armored Iraqi T-72 known as Asad Babil was operational from the period 1988-1989 (the first of them completely assembled in a production line was actually operational in January 1989). The T-72s that faced the Iranian Army were of the very basic model for export, without any armor or misile countermeasures improvement.

DagosNavy Jan 24, 01:52 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

  • More stuff added to the Armor section: Some innovations introduced by the iraqis taken from a Russian website, and a case of an Iraqi tank defeating a Javelin; after all, there was no misreading of the article about the Airport's Battle, as I thought before.

DagosNavy 00:05, August 29 2006 (UTC)

  • A redundant pic of the stripped Abrams removed and replaced by an interesting image of a sabot round (it seems to be 125 mm) used as IED with a makeshift aiming device consisting in three blocks of concrete.

DagosNavy 03:26, Sept 18 2006 (UTC)

  • Invasion of Iraq section cleaned up. Addition of an Air-to-Ground battle between Asad Babils of Medina Division and Apaches from the US 11th Aviation Regiment. Mostly speculative statement about the Abrams disabled by machine gun fire moved to the DShK article.

DagosNavy 04:04, Oct 14 2006 (UTC)

  • Two images of Abrams allegedly damaged by Asad Babil removed for copyright problems. Still available by external link. Added another photo, this one possibly showing B-23.

DagosNavy 04:26, Nov 19 2006 (UTC)

  • Section´s headers, references, and footnotes cleaned up by Satori Son. Addition of features table and other minor changes.

DagosNavy 02:25, Jan 02 2007 (UTC)

  • Clean up of the section about the Abrams. The tank described in the damage assessment as hit by an Iraqi T-72 almost certainly DIDN'T belong to TF 4-64, and was NOT struck in the battle of Rumeilah. Its identity still remains a mystery. Go to Abrams article discussion page (Tanks disabled section) for further clarification. Reports about another disabled 1st AD tank (D-24) likely shot at by a Lion coming soon.

DagosNavy 04:12, Jan 31 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Is it just me, or does this article seem to be, well, for a lack of better phrase, trying too hard? I mean it goes on for several paragraphs about how it might have damaged an Abrams, and the conclusions section description of how American's where unsuccessful for not destroying more(!) enemy forces made me chuckle out loud. 70.101.32.218 04:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Well, The citations about how the Iraqi T-72 in some incidents might have or, in at least one case, did damaged an Abrams are all of them from American sources, so I see no reason for you to chuckle about it. I could understand your attitude (regarding a trying hard) if the paragraphs were unsourced, but that's not the case. I think the importance of this article is to show a glimpse of the only type of tank that faced the M1s in real combat with some chance of inflicting harm upon them.

The same thing for the conclusions section; all the references about a US overwhelming but hollow victory come from American authors. Don´t let to be fooled by the CNN images of 1991. By the time of the Coalition's ground offensive, the Iraqi Army was in full retreat, if not running away in panic. Only the Tawakalna Republican guard division hold up its dug-in positions for a time before facing total annihilation. But the US Army failed, by far, to achieve something near to a complete encirclement or destruction of the bulk of Saddam forces. If you have some doubts about, read the footnotes.

And, please, the next time you post to a talk page, sign up your comments as a registered user.

DagosNavy 00:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


This is a good and valid query. What is particularly noteworthy about this client-copy T-72 that cannot be covered by a few paragraphs in the main T-72 article? It would make for an interesting article for niche publication (where you could speculate freely) or perhaps the beginnings of a dissertation...as it goes, however, it's a rambling and not very good encyclopedia entry.

As it happens, registration is not a prerequisite to comment or even edit, it's just preferred.--84.71.15.48 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I insist, my anonymous friend, this "monkey model" of the T-72 was the biggest thing which faced M1s and Bradleys in battle, so the article is focused mainly on that aspect of the tank. For the Soviet T-72, yes, we have the main page, but remember that no Red Army tank has confronted an American tank in open action, never. Your claim of "rambling" makes me laugh; this article has a good number of published and reliable primary and secondary sources with a citation for almost every paragraph, so your claims of "speculation" are, to be lenient, out of place. If you want, you can discuss it with the guy that rated this article as a "B" class (who is an established and respectable Wikipedian).

DagosNavy 00:20, 02 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chieftain "smoothbore"

"The Iraqi engineers tested this reinforcement against smoothbore 120 mm Chieftain tank guns in 1989, apparently with some success."

Chieftain tanks do not have smoothbore guns and never have done but have rifled 120mm guns. Also, not sure if a HEAT round was ever actually created as standard loadings for most (if not all) Chieftain users was a mix of APDS(APDFS) and HESH rounds.

  • Oooops!. Good point. The Chieftain's L11A is certainly a rifled gun, surely I was thinking of the Abram's Rheinmetall 120mm Gun at the time of the edit. About the type of ammo used in those tests, the Russian source mentions различными боеприпасами, which means with different ammunitions, so we can only guess if they fitted some kind of HEAT round to the gun standards. In any case, the HESH warhead creates a shock wave, whose power is likely to be scattered or deflected by a spaced armor plate. Thanks.

DagosNavy 12:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armor section

I removed a few lines about combat preformance of the Lion of Babylon, because they're outright misrepresentations of the actual events. The first, about the Lion "defeating" a Javelin ATGM, is completely false, unless the Lion has some sort of secret technology that forces missiles to miss their target. Unless someone can justify essentially stating: "the missile missed, but it's still somehow relevant to discussing the tank's armor" it shouldn't be re-added. Also, the second incident that described a Lion being attacked by 3 TOW missiles from a Bradley is another misrepresentation. Of the 3 missiles, one missed, one hit the road wheel and effected a mobility kill, and the third missile, which hit directly, destroyed the tank. Again, unless the Lion has a force field that can deflect missiles, and it's somehow magical that a road-wheel hit didn't completely destroy the vehicle, it isn't relevant. The incident where a 120mm round from an Abrams impacted the turret at point-blank ranges and didn't penetrate is, on the other hand very relevant, and the types of incidents that should be included. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi DagosNavy. I saw the revision you made to the section in question, and I'm still somewhat concerned with it. Again, it's with the near-miss bit. I'm no expert on anti-tank munitions by any stretch of the imagination, but from my understanding, HEAT rounds generally aren't an "area-effect" weapon; they're supposed to turn a cone of metal into essentially an elastic dart that penetrates armor and create spalling inside. Therefore, I don't see how a near-miss could really be notable, unless you could prove that the tank in question was actually equipped with the Chinese-made electro-optical countermeasures, and that it actually did fool the Javelin. I would think that's nigh impossible to prove, so I really think the section should go, as it's just speculation right now. Anyways, I look forward to your comments on the issue. Parsecboy (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Parsecboy. I was editing a response to your former comments when I found this new one! :). I acknowledge that the tank EOCMs are not properly pertinent to the armor, but I also think they are worth to mention there as a possible explanation for those "mysterious" cases of misses or near-misses. I think the statement should stand, making clear that it's just a possibility, according to the available sources.
Yes, you are right, shaped charge ammunition is not suitable for the so-called "indirect fire". The examples of damage in the tanks despite the misses, however, proves that those weapons certainly generate a shock-wave (besides the jet-effect) capable of producing some area-harm and shrapnel. I don't remember the source, but during the first phase of Iraqi Freedom, Iraqi soldiers used RPGs as mortars. The fact that damage was effectively done on the T-72s and the tanks still survived shows that their armor worked in some degree against last generation ATGMs. The Gulf War is plenty of T-72s and other Iraqis tanks reduced to smoldering hulls by indirect fire (artillery and MLRS). Therefore, my opinion is that near-misses also count.

DagosNavy 01:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's reasonable. After taking another look at the section, I think it's ok. Between the two of us, we've worked it into a better version, and that's what matters, right? As for the RPGs-as-mortars, the Iraqis were still doing that while I was over there from 2005-2006, so no additional source is required, at least for me anyways :) Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It's OK, man, and thanks for your first-hand account (about the RPGs). Greetings.DagosNavy 00:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)