There were more tanks on both sides than at Kursk (7,818, as opposed to the 6,528 which fought at Kursk). Far more significant was the intensity of the Gulf War, in which the tank battle lasted only one hundred hours, as opposed to the Soviet’s six week slog for victory at Kursk.”
But the numbers of tanks aren’t what a soldier or commander would talk about, as armoured infantry are vital for actually taking enemy positions. Also, the numbers of armoured artillery are vital to prepare those position to be attacked while surviving enemy fire.
Plus my colleagues on board the ships and on land bringing down naval gunfire. But far more important than any of those numbers, is how all this equipment is used, and the quality of the people using it. In Gulf War One, the speed, accuracy and communications of the field artillery were of particular significance, and far more powerful than anything that had ever been seen before on a battlefield. The British general alone had more artillery firepower than at the battle of El Alamein in the Second World War.
1 thought on “25th Anniversary of the Largest (and shortest) Tank Battle in History”
Hi Hugh– I’m working on a piece for NationalGeographic.com about Desert Storm, and I’m intrigued by your numbers that show it involved the largest tank battle in history. Those tank totals are incredible–can you point me in the direction of some source material? Thanks!