Operation Victory the biggest tank battle of the Cold War?

[andrey12345 v2.0]

As you know, the largest conflict during the Cold War era was the Iran-Iraq war. It lasted from 1980 to 1988. Combat operations were conducted practically along the entire Iran-Iraq border, on land, at sea and in the air. With the involvement of large masses of troops.
The latest weapons were used at the time, both made in the USSR and USA/Western Europe, and even in China and DPRK. It was in this war that attack UAVs were first used, albeit in a rather primitive form.

Brief history

The war began with the invasion of Iraqi into Iran in the fall of 1980, with the goal of seizing disputed and oil-bearing territories, mainly in the Iranian province of Khuzestan.
In the first months of the war, Iraq managed to capture or besiege a number of Iranian large cities: Khorramshahr, Susangerd, Abadan, Ahvaz, Dizful.
And significantly advance into Iranian territory. Apparently the reason was that the Iranian army, weakened after the 1979 Islamic revolution, would not be able to offer significant resistance.
And as result Iraq will be able to gain control over oil-bearing areas, the disputed Karun River and port on the Persian Gulf coast. That, in general, happened.
But the stubborn defense of a number of cities, as well as counter-attacks by Iranian troops and militia forces, slowed down the Iraqi army's advance.
And in some places, Iranian troops even recaptured cities captured earlier by the Iraqis.

For example, the city of Susangerd and the village of Hoveyzeh were liberated by the joint efforts of the army and Iranian militia.
As a result, by the end of 1980, the Iraqi offensive had stalled, and the configuration of the front line (in the Khuzestan province) was two protrusions towards Iran,
which were captured by the Iraqis:
1) Near the city of Dizful (Dezful), in the north of the province.
2) Near the cities of Akhvaz-Abadan along the bank of the Karun River (on the south).

In the middle between these protrusions, a wedging of the territory liberated by the Iranians was formed near the city of Susangerd, in the floodplain of the Karkheh River.

Situation map
https://i.imgur.com/TLn2BXA.png

And at the beginning of 1981, the Iranian command planned the first major counteroffensive, operational plan "Victory", which was to cut off the Iraqi protrusion near the Ahvaz city. And hopefully, destroy the Iraqi troops in this area, breaking the siege of Susangerd and Ahvaz cities.

It is about this operation that will be discussed in this section.

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by Old School Internet Warlord:

Why 1359?

Because it was in this year that the Iran-Iraq war began.

Shahrivar 31, 1359 to be precise

Operation Victory began in Dey 15, 1359

[Old School Internet Warlord]

Didn`t think of their calender...Alright then.

[Monster Fart]

any helo assets involved? if so do you plan on adding it in game, similar to shield of the prophet? if i'm not mistaken you guys had it in SABOW?

[andrey12345 v2.0]

And what did the enemy do?

Unfortunately, it was not possible to find any archival (or at least inspire some confidence in their consistency) documents from the Iraqi side. Well, you know, these democratic countries have freedom of speech, everything is open and transparent. Very different are these terrible authoritarian regimes, such as Iran, closing and hiding everything, nothing to find out...
That is why we will use Iranian intelligence received before the start of the offensive.
The area south of Susangerd, which was an agricultural area before the war, was devastated at that time, local residents mostly abandoned it. The fields have almost ceased to be cultivated. The village of Hoveyzeh was almost completely destroyed.
On the Iraqi side, there were two divisions in this area: 9 TD (directly at the combat area near the Karkheh-Kor River) and 5 MID near Ahvaz. Herewith, it was the 5 MID that became one of the reasons and goals of the Iranian offensive. Since it was located in such an area from where it was convenient to strike both at the encirclement of the Iranian group at Susangerd, and at the encirclement of the group at Ahvaz, and it was also convenient to advance deep into the Iranian territory (to Dizful from the south).

Enemies
https://i.imgur.com/dtwx4TO.png

And only a water barrier in the form of a water flood near Ahvaz held back the Iraqis from the offensive. But the Iranians reasonably assumed that as soon as spring comes and it gets all dry in this already dry year, this obstacle can become quite surmountable. Actually, “Hamidiyeh barracks” was apparently one of the key areas occupied by the 5 MID, “hanging” over the entire Iranian defense system and which was supposed to be liberated.

The weakness of the Iraqi defense was the placement of units in a line along the front line without echeloning in depth.
Composition of 9 TD:
1) Division HQ
- engineer battalion and AAA battalion
2) 35 TBde
- Al-Badr tbn
- Alkandi tbn
- Deir Yassin tbn
- 13 mbn
3) 43 TBde
- Haifa tbn
- Gaza tbn
- Akko tbn
- 10 mbn
4) A spec-ops battalion of the 31 Spec-Ops Brigade.
5) Two tank and infantry BGs (what exactly is meant is not clear).
6) Arty group of the Division
- 2 bns of 122 mm guns
- 2 bns of 130 mm guns
- 2 missile bns

Composition of 5 MID:
1) Division HQ
- engineer battalion, AT battalion, AAA battalion
2) 15 MBde (three mbns)
3) 20 MBr (three mbns and 10 tbn)
4) Arty group of the Division
- 4 bns of 122 mm guns
- 1 bn of 130 mm guns
- 1 missile bn

This information is based on intelligence and naturally may (and does) contain errors.

The Iranians had no information about the actual strength and condition of the enemy. The Iranian 16 ArmTD struck 43 and 35 TBde. The ​​attack area of 1 ArmTBde 92 ArmTD was apparently defended by the 5 MID units.

[andrey12345 v2.0]

А что же делал противник?

К сожалению каких-либо архивных (или хотя бы вызывающих какое-то доверие своей непротиворечивостью) документов с Иракской стороны найти не удалось. Ну вы знаете, эти демократические страны - свобода слова, все открыто и прозрачно. То ли дело эти страшные авторитарные режимы, такие как Иран, все позакрывают и попрячут, ничего не узнать…
Именно поэтому мы будем использовать иранские разведданные полученные перед началом наступления.
Район южнее Сусенгерда, бывший до войны сельскохозяйственным районом, в это время был разорен, местные жители в основном покинули его. Поля почти перестали возделываться. Поселок Ховейзе был практически полностью разрушен.
В данном районе с иракской стороны располагались две дивизии: 9 ТД (непосредственно в месте боев у реки Керхе Кор) и 5 МПД возле Ахваза. При этом, именно 5 МПД стала одной из причин и целей наступления иранцев. Так как располагалась в таком районе, откуда удобно было наносить удар, как на окружение иранской группировки у Сусенгерда, так и на окружение группировки у Ахваза, и столь же удобно наступать вглубь территории Ирана (к Дизфулю с юга).

Противник
https://i.imgur.com/dtwx4TO.png

И только водная преграда в виде разлива воды у Ахваза сдерживала иракцев от наступления. Но иранцы разумно предположили, что, как только в этом, и без того засушливом году, наступит весна и станет совсем сухо, эта преграда может стать вполне преодолимой. Собственно “казармы Хамиди” это видимо и был один из ключевых участков занятых 5 МПД, “нависающий” над всей системой обороны иранцев и который предполагалось освободить.

Слабой стороной иракской обороны было расположение подразделений в линию вдоль линии фронта без эшелонирования.

Состав 9ТД:
1) Управление дивизии
- инж.бат и зенитно-артиллерийский дивизион
2) 35 ТБр
- тбн Аль-Бадр
- тбн Алканди
- тбн Дейр Ясин
- 13 мбн
3) 43 ТБр
- Хайфский тбн
- тбн Газы
- тбн Акко
- 10 мбн
4) Батальон спецназа 31 бригады спецназа.
5) Две танковые и пехотные БГ (что конкретно имеется в виду - непонятно).
6) Арт. группа дивизии
- 2 дивизиона 122 мм орудий
- 2 дивизиона 130 мм орудий
- 2 ракетных дивизиона

Состав 5 МПД:
1) Управление дивизии
- инж.бат, ПТ дивизион, зенитно-артиллерийский дивизион
2) 15 МБр (три мбн)
3) 20 МБр (три мбн и 10 тбн)
4) Арт. группа дивизии
- 4 дивизиона 122 мм орудий
- 1 дивизион 130 мм орудий
- 1 ракетный дивизион

Эта информация на основе разведданных и естественно может содержать (и точно содержит) ошибки.

Сведениями о фактической численности и состоянии противника иранцы не располагали. Под удары иранской 16 БрТД попали 43 и 35 ТБр. В районе наступления 1 БрТБр 92 БрТД видимо оборонялись части 5 МПД.

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by Monster Fart:

any helo assets involved?

If you mean by helo - helicopters, then may be. There is no certainty about this moment yet.

Originally posted by Monster Fart:

if so do you plan on adding it in game, similar to shield of the prophet?

Here I do not really understand what is meant.
SoP does not have any special helicopters.

[Headshotkill]

Are you planning a new game or DLC about this or just a little history lesson?

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by Headshotkill:

Are you planning a new game or DLC about this or just a little history lesson?

DLC

[xxx]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Operation_Nasr.png

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by fabiovirgilii:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Operation_Nasr.png

This is anything but NOT Operation Nasr. Apparently taken from a fantasy book with an alternative history .

Map of Op Nasr special for you from Iranian archives:
https://i.imgur.com/pzYIy7h.png

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Debriefing

Answers to important questions such as, what happened in the end in terms of losses? Were there T-72s? How many tanks were knocked out by helicopters? And various other no less interesting moments.

Fortunately, British specialists were allowed to inspect the damaged Chieftain tanks. And those, in turn, made a report in which they kindly sorted out everything about what and how hit the Chieftains, including the Operation Victory. Unfortunately, they considered only tanks damaged by Iraq in the first 12 months of war. And only those that were captured by the Iraqis. But, on the other hand, the territory at that time remained mainly with Iraq and it can be considered that this is a significant share of Iranian losses, at least irrecoverable. And Operation Victory was the main loss of Chieftain tanks in the first year of the war.

So, in the first 12 months of the war, the total losses of Iranian armored vehicles are estimated at 580 units. The losses on the Iraqi side are approximately the same (about 600 units).
Iranian losses in the Chieftain tanks (captured by the Iraqis) - 190 units

By category:
1) 80 - light repair
2) 30 - medium repair
3) 30 - factory repair
4) 50 - permanent loss
Most of the tanks are fully functional!

By weapon type:
70% of the tanks were hit by the 115-mm APCR (from the T-62 tank gun).
There is no evidence of a hit by the 125-mm APCR! Apparently, the T-72 tanks simply frightened the Iranians with their appearance, or it is true that the T-72 was first used in this war only in 1982.
There is evidence of penetration by a 100-mm APHE projectile (T-54/T-55), ATGM "Malyutka", TOW and RPG-7.
It is not clear what is meant about the TOW, Iraq had none of them. Presumably these are projectiles of recoilless guns or the BMP-1 gun.
Only 1 tank was hit by the helicopter. Oh, those treacherous Iraqi helicopters!
From the total of 88 hits by the 115-mm APCR, 71 were penetrations.
HEAT shells account for 44 hits: 115-mm and ATGM (or recoilless guns). The outer diameter of the penetration is 35-mm. Less damage than APCR, more rare fires. All except 5 (39) gave a penetration. 2 ATGM "Malyutka" gave a penetration. 7 hits from RPG-7 gave 0 penetrations.
16 Chieftain tanks were knocked out with the killed crew at the time of the hit. Apparently the small damaging effect of the 115-mm APCR affected the insignificant losses of the Iranian tankers.
49 Chieftain tanks were badly damaged, 16 of them were destroyed with ammunition stowage fires. Most due to a hit to the front ammo racks.
Many Chieftains had damage of the gunner sights. Many hits of the commander cupola and apparently a number of tank commanders were killed. Telescopic sights remained intact.

What does a APCR hit with a penetration look like?
“A fireball of low duration but high intensity surging through the penetrated compartment. The turret padding and any cloth, such as crew clothing, was badly singed and paint was blistered. In any cases the singing of the padding and its foam lining had caused dense smoke and the production of a noxious gas.”
The fragments fly off in a cone of about 20 degrees. The diameter of the cone is 600 mm for 4 feet from the hole. The inner diameter of the penetration is 60-80 mm.

Was the very important tactical method known as Hull-Down used?
Few tanks were used properly, the hull was not hidden behind cover. Therefore, many hits fell on a relatively vulnerable hull. There is almost no evidence that gun stabilizer was activated at the time of the hit (how it was determined - unknown). Tanks are often used for indirect fire support.

Just like that, you train and train in a boot camp how to use the Hull-Down and that modern tanker can't live without it. And then the largest tank battle in the war happens, and suddenly it turns out that real terrain may have no cover for a tank in which it is possible to cover the hull, in contrast to specially prepared places that were at the training grounds.

Conclusions:
- special clothing is required for crews (not to burn).
- additional protection of the front ammunition stowage (charges) is required.
- protection of the gunner sights is necessary (welding of special deflectors).
- need to protect sights from indirect fire and the crew from fragments.
- new protection of the tank front projection is needed.

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Разбор полетов

Ответы на важные вопросы, такие как, а что же случилось в итоге в плане потерь? Были ли Т-72? Сколько танков набили вертолеты? И разные другие не менее интересные моменты.

К счастью, к осмотру подбитых танков Чифтен допустили британских специалистов. А те, в свою очередь, сделали отчет, в котором любезно разложили по полочкам, чем и как были подбиты Чифтены, в том числе и в операции Победа. К сожалению, рассматривались танки подбитые Ираком за первые 12 месяцев боев. И только те что захватили иракцы. Но, с другой стороны, территория боевых действий в это время оставалась в основном за Ираком и можно считать, что это существенная доля иранских потерь, по-крайней мере безвозвратных. А операция Победа - основные потери танков Чифтен за первый год войны.

Итак, за первые 12 месяцев войны общие потери иранской бронетехники оцениваются в 580 единиц. Потери с иракской стороны примерно аналогичные (около 600 единиц).
Потери Ирана в танках Чифтен (захваченные иракцами) - 190 штук

По категориям:
1) 80 - легкий ремонт
2) 30 - средний ремонт
3) 30 - заводской ремонт
4) 50 - безвозврат
Большинство танков полностью работоспособные!

По средствам поражения:
70% танков поражены 115-мм БПС (из пушки танка Т-62).
Нет свидетельств поражения 125-мм БПС! Видимо танки Т-72 просто пугали иранцев внешним видом, или же верно утверждение что, первый раз Т-72 в этой войне были применены только в 1982 году.
Есть свидетельства поражения 100-мм калиберным бронебойным снарядом (Т-54/Т-55), ПТУР Малютка, ТОУ и РПГ-7.
Насчет ТОУ непонятно что имеется ввиду, у Ирака их не было. Возможно это снаряды безоткатных орудий или пушки БМП-1.
Только 1 танк поражен оружием вертолета. Ох уж эти коварные иракские вертолеты.
Из 88 попаданий 115-мм БПС, 71 было с пробитием.
На долю кумулятивных снарядов приходится 44 попадания: 115-мм и ПТУР (или БЗО). Внешний диаметр пробития 35-мм. Повреждения меньше чем БПС, более редкие возгорания. Все кроме 5 (39) дали пробитие. 2 ПТУР “Малютка” дали пробитие. 7 попаданий РПГ-7 дали 0 пробитий.

16 танков Чифтен подбиты с поражением экипажа в момент попадания. Видимо небольшое поражающее действие 115-мм БПС сказывалось на незначительных потерях иранских танкистов.
49 танков Чифтен сильно повреждено, 16 из них сильно повреждены и имели пожары боеукладок. Большинство из-за поражения передних боеукладок.
Много Чифтенов имели повреждения прицелов наводчика. Множество поражений командирской башни и видимо некоторое количество командиров танков были убиты. Телескопические прицелы остались неповрежденными.

Как выглядит попадание БПС с пробитием?
Огненный шар небольшой продолжительности, но высокой интенсивности, разносится через пробитый отсек. Обивка башни и любая ткань, например, одежда экипажа, были сильно опалены, а краска покрылась пузырями. В любом случае проседание набивки и ее пенопластовой подкладки вызвало густой дым и выделение ядовитого газа.
Осколки разлетаются конусом около 20 градусов. Диаметр конуса 600 мм на 4 фута от дырки. Внутренний диаметр пробития 60-80мм.

Применялся ли крайне важный тактический прием известный как Hull-Down?
Мало танков использовалось как следует, корпус не был спрятан за укрытием. Поэтому много попаданий приходились в относительно уязвимый корпус. Почти нет свидетельств того что стабилизатор пушки был включен во время попадания (как определили неизвестно). Танки часто используются для поддержки непрямой наводкой.

Вот так вот, учишь учишь в учебке, как использовать Hull-Down и что без этого никак не прожить современному танкисту. А тут случается крупнейшее танковое сражение в войне, и внезапно выясняется что на реальной местности может не найтись укрытий для танка в которых возможно закрыть корпус, в отличии от специально заготовленных мест которые были на учебном полигоне.

Выводы:
- необходима спецодежда экипажей (чтобы не горела).
- необходима дополнительная защита передних боеукладок (зарядов).
- необходима защита прицелов наводчика (приварка специальных отражателей).
- необходимость защиты прицелов от непрямого огня и экипажа от осколков.
- нужна новая защита передней проекции танка.

[Flan]

Originally posted by andrey12345 v2.0:

70% of the tanks were hit by the 115-mm APCR (from the T-62 tank gun).

This shell exists or does it just mean a finned sabot?

Originally posted by andrey12345 v2.0:

Tanks are often used for indirect fire support.

Just like that, you train and train in a boot camp how to use the Hull-Down and that modern tanker can't live without it. And then the largest tank battle in the war happens, and suddenly it turns out that real terrain may have no cover for a tank in which it is possible to cover the hull, in contrast to specially prepared places that were at the training grounds.
.

Isn't this (using terrain intuitively) what separates a tank commander from a veteran tank commander? I assume from the story many of these tank crews hadn't been in many tank battles already.

Also the indirect use of tank guns a lot of post war tanks had this feature and it was used lots but it never seems to show up in any media for some reason? Like could the tank platoons in the Angola campaign feature as off map support?

Thanks for the history write up it is good to learn about things that usually don't have any reliable English sources. Have you thought about writing a e-book or documenting these kinds of things into one place? A lot of the things people know are made up of not true things because the only resource in their language comes from a limited supply of research that might be faulty. Especially for things written in English of things that were only recorded in another language, they are full of repeated myths and miss-telling that have a chain of references that lead to a dead end.

[andrey12345 v2.0]

Originally posted by Flannelette:

This shell exists or does it just mean a finned sabot?

Yes, it mean a sub-caliber projectile with fins

Originally posted by Flannelette:

Isn't this (using terrain intuitively) what separates a tank commander from a veteran tank commander? I assume from the story many of these tank crews hadn't been in many tank battles already.

Above, there is a post with a detailed description of the area. There is essentially nowhere to cover tanks in general, since the lowlands are flooded and the elevation difference is very small.

It's hard to say about experience. On the one hand, there are experienced officers, on the other, due to losses, there are inexperienced tankers.
These are divisions that remained from the time of the Shah, and participated in the battles since the beginning of the war.

Originally posted by Flannelette:

Also the indirect use of tank guns a lot of post war tanks had this feature and it was used lots but it never seems to show up in any media for some reason?

Again, we return to the description of the area. The main shelter is an artificially constructed rampart that protects the positions. Which definitely contributes to shooting from closed positions.

Originally posted by Flannelette:

Like could the tank platoons in the Angola campaign feature as off map support?

There is no reliable information from Angolan side, so it is not known. And SADF used a tanks very limited in general.

Originally posted by Flannelette:

Thanks for the history write up it is good to learn about things that usually don't have any reliable English sources. Have you thought about writing a e-book or documenting these kinds of things into one place?

Well, we are engaged in games, not books :)
I think now interactive media is better suited for this kind of thing than books.

[Headshotkill]

Originally posted by andrey12345 v2.0:

Originally posted by Headshotkill:

Are you planning a new game or DLC about this or just a little history lesson?

DLC

Cool, looking forward to play it.
Also, a little video to set the tone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmo04Nw5Vdg