Iraq to Receive M1's?!

[Feanor]

http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/04/abrams/
http://www.menewsline.com/article-1159,1134-U-S-Plans-Abrams-Sale-To-Iraq.aspx

Whoa. No T-84 for the Iraqi Army. They're going for the M1. Is it feasible? How soon could it happen? And finally (western equipment is a bit of a weak point for me) what's the main differences between the M1A1 and M1A2?

[Todjaeger]

http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/04/abrams/
http://www.menewsline.com/article-1159,1134-U-S-Plans-Abrams-Sale-To-Iraq.aspx

Whoa. No T-84 for the Iraqi Army. They're going for the M1. Is it feasible? How soon could it happen? And finally (western equipment is a bit of a weak point for me) what's the main differences between the M1A1 and M1A2?

The current administration may have proposed and approved such a sale, however I have my doubts as to whether it will go through. Such a sale needs to clear Congress, and there are now only three months until the election. That is plenty of time for politics to come into play, particularly on an item like the M1 being refurbished and sold to Iraq. Particularly given the number of people in the US who wish the US was not still involved there and that there is still some question as to the stability of the government.

Time will tell, but I can easily see this getting stopped, either by Congress, or once the new administration takes office, depending on who wins the election.

-Cheers

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[weasel1962]

<deleted for double posting>

[Feanor]

Tanks can easily be effective COIN if used properly. But yes politics or lack of funds could stop it. Then again the Iraqi Army has oreder LAV's and much other equipment that's currently used by the US forces. So it's not out of bounds.

[StevoJH]

I would have thought they'd buy something more along the lines of the T80's which are still produced in the Ukraine, or the T90's produced by russia at the moment. The T90 is about half the price of an M1 and is Diesel rather then Turbine powered, so it would probably be easier to maintain.

But i guess its the decision of the Iraqi government and their US Advisors. Maybe they got scared off the T90 because its a T72 Derivative :cool:

[Chino]

You mean after spending all that money, effort and human lives invading Iraq, that US is gonna let Iraqi defense dollars go to buying Russian tanks? C'mon...

[eckherl]

http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/04/abrams/
http://www.menewsline.com/article-1159,1134-U-S-Plans-Abrams-Sale-To-Iraq.aspx

Whoa. No T-84 for the Iraqi Army. They're going for the M1. Is it feasible? How soon could it happen? And finally (western equipment is a bit of a weak point for me) what's the main differences between the M1A1 and M1A2?

This deal will not go thru, Congress will see to it. As I mentioned in a couple of other threads, Iraq wants to have a fully modernized Regiment of armor on hand, the requests have also gone out to other countries to see who will sell them equipment.

So you just may still see T-84s, or how about some Leclercs.:D

[StevoJH]

This deal will not go thru, Congress will see to it. As I mentioned in a couple of other threads, Iraq wants to have a fully modernized Regiment of armor on hand, the requests have also gone out to other countries to see who will sell them equipment.

So you just may still see T-84s, or how about some Leclercs.:D

Challenger II?

Wait, i'm fairly sure thats the most expensive tank of them all, never mind. ;)

[eckherl]

I would have thought they'd buy something more along the lines of the T80's which are still produced in the Ukraine, or the T90's produced by russia at the moment. The T90 is about half the price of an M1 and is Diesel rather then Turbine powered, so it would probably be easier to maintain.

But i guess its the decision of the Iraqi government and their US Advisors. Maybe they got scared off the T90 because its a T72 Derivative :cool:

No - they are still picking up additional T-72 tanks, just not from Russia.;)
Iraq does operate Ukrainian APCs and have requested a look at the T-84, please keep in mind that Ukrainian troops have participated in the Coalition and have performed on a outstanding level, now some Ukrainian companies may be rewarded with some sales.

[eckherl]

Challenger II?

Wait, i'm fairly sure thats the most expensive tank of them all, never mind. ;)

No - not the most expensive, just the one that offers two piece crappy ammunition that is unpredictable during extreme temperature changes.;)

[StevoJH]

No - not the most expensive, just the one that offers two piece crappy ammunition that is unpredictable during extreme temperature changes.;)

Oh? They have ammunition problems?

As for being expensive, with a 4 million pound price tag that puts them at over 8 million per unit. T90 is ~3mil and M1 ~5Mil i thought.

[osage_18]

Good, I hope they buy some from the U.S. with the $100 Billion surplus they have...

[Chrom]

Oh? They have ammunition problems?

As for being expensive, with a 4 million pound price tag that puts them at over 8 million per unit. T90 is ~3mil and M1 ~5Mil i thought. M1 is much more expensive, 5 mil is fairly old price tag. Example: in 1998 M1/M1A1 upgrade to M1A2 variant for US army was prices at ~ 3 mil a piece. Just an upgrade, and in 1998 dollars... Since then prices nearly doubled.

IN 2006, upgrading M1A2 to M1A2SEP cost ~ 2.2 mil $.

A lot of contracts here: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

[StevoJH]

M1 is much more expensive, 5 mil is fairly old price tag. Example: in 1998 M1/M1A1 upgrade to M1A2 variant for US army was prices at ~ 3 mil a piece. Just an upgrade, and in 1998 dollars... Since then prices nearly doubled.

IN 2006, upgrading M1A2 to M1A2SEP cost ~ 2.2 mil $.

A lot of contracts here: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

Well, the only price i could fine for the challenger was from 1999, so i have no idea what they'd cost now with inflation. I think you win this one from lack of oposition if nothing else. (really not worth arguing about)

[eckherl]

Oh? They have ammunition problems?

As for being expensive, with a 4 million pound price tag that puts them at over 8 million per unit. T90 is ~3mil and M1 ~5Mil i thought.

Yes - propellants are erratic at extreme temperature changes, thus *one* of the reasons they are going to L55s.

It is not a question of cost to Iraq, they will not go with Russian T-90s due to political reasons, but the T-90S would be a nice addition and a fully capable tank.

[F-15 Eagle]

So are they going to build new M1A1 tanks?

[Waylander]

Never ever. IF (a big if IMHO but maybe I am going to see a surprise) they get Abrams they are going to get refurbished ones.

One question is if they are able to maintain them properly.
Their maintenance and training record was not stellar when they were still using T-72s and Type 69s.
I bet they need to rely heavily on contractors if they want to get a high rate of availability and decent training in the near future.
The same would go for a beast like the Leclerc and to a lightly lesser extent for T-90s and T-84s.

And I am questioning if it is wise to spend alot of their available money for new shiny military kit.
As if there is nothing else to do in their country...

[baranek]

Does anyone have a reliable source on how many M1 of all versions there are in US Army and USMC inventory ?

[Chrom]

Never ever. IF (a big if IMHO but maybe I am going to see a surprise) they get Abrams they are going to get refurbished ones.

One question is if they are able to maintain them properly.
Their maintenance and training record was not stellar when they were still using T-72s and Type 69s.
I bet they need to rely heavily on contractors if they want to get a high rate of availability and decent training in the near future.
The same would go for a beast like the Leclerc and to a lightly lesser extent for T-90s and T-84s.

And I am questioning if it is wise to spend alot of their available money for new shiny military kit.
As if there is nothing else to do in their country... It would be nightmare for Iraqis to keep Abrams going - plus, of course, a BIG pile of money.

[DarthAmerica]

http://lenta.ru/news/2008/08/04/abrams/
http://www.menewsline.com/article-1159,1134-U-S-Plans-Abrams-Sale-To-Iraq.aspx

Whoa. No T-84 for the Iraqi Army. They're going for the M1. Is it feasible? How soon could it happen? And finally (western equipment is a bit of a weak point for me) what's the main differences between the M1A1 and M1A2?

The biggest difference is the CITV(Commanders Independent Thermal Viewer) and the .50 Cal HMG is no longer fired remotely under armor. Its a traditional butterfly handle .50 Cal. It also has the IVIS(intervehicular information system) that displays digital data and can xmit info through the SINGARS. Say I see a Company of BMPs off in the distance. I can get precise MGRS Grid and xmit that to artillery unit and Ka-Boom. All without using my organic weapons. There is also an APU that allows me to shut the gas guzzling turbine down and run the electronics and turret. Those would be the main differences. And it's very feasible. When I was in AOBC we had a lot a foreign students in clas with us and I have also worked along side as liason for other Middle Easern Armor Officers training on Abrams.

-DA

[eaf-f16]

It would be nightmare for Iraqis to keep Abrams going - plus, of course, a BIG pile of money.

Money isn't going to be a problem for Iraq. I read an article today that said that the Iraqi government is projected to have well over $70 Billion of public revenue this year.

[DarthAmerica]

Money isn't going to be a problem for Iraq. I read an article today that said that the Iraqi government is projected to have well over $70 Billion of public revenue this year.

Money is no problem. The Iraqis would also not be the first Abrams user in the region. The tank is manufactured locally to the region and the Iraqis can fall in on the U.S. Army logistics and support infrastructure for the Abrams. The Iraqis are likely to get Current U.S. Army Abrams in theater as we decrease our footprint. It's a very reasonable proposal. Not only that, but the old Iraqi Army tank force is in a state of severe decay...

Besides, the Iraqis know just how effective the Abrams are now.

-DA

[eckherl]

Never ever. IF (a big if IMHO but maybe I am going to see a surprise) they get Abrams they are going to get refurbished ones.

One question is if they are able to maintain them properly.
Their maintenance and training record was not stellar when they were still using T-72s and Type 69s.
I bet they need to rely heavily on contractors if they want to get a high rate of availability and decent training in the near future.
The same would go for a beast like the Leclerc and to a lightly lesser extent for T-90s and T-84s.

And I am questioning if it is wise to spend alot of their available money for new shiny military kit.
As if there is nothing else to do in their country...

They are not going to get them, especially the ones stationed in Iraq, classified issues inregards to armor, if this deal was to go thru then they will most surely get something along the lines of what Egypt has. Congress will have this shot down within 30 days of notice.

[eckherl]

Money is no problem. The Iraqis would also not be the first Abrams user in the region. The tank is manufactured locally to the region and the Iraqis can fall in on the U.S. Army logistics and support infrastructure for the Abrams. The Iraqis are likely to get Current U.S. Army Abrams in theater as we decrease our footprint. It's a very reasonable proposal. Not only that, but the old Iraqi Army tank force is in a state of severe decay...

Besides, the Iraqis know just how effective the Abrams are now.

-DA

Tanks have already been approved to help off set that decay, look for many M60 series and T-72 tanks. We would never leave Army nor Marine M1 series tanks in Iraq due to the ingredients in the armor that is carried, and the armor is different than the other three Middle Eastern country users. Australia is a different matter. Also the manufacturing process consists of building knock off kits.

[DarthAmerica]

Tanks have already been approved to help off set that decay, look for many M60 series and T-72 tanks. We would never leave Army nor Marine M1 series tanks in Iraq due to the ingredients in the armor that is carried, and the armor is different than the other three Middle Eastern country users. Australia is a different matter. Also the manufacturing process consists of building knock off kits.

I know the armor is different. However, based on things I've heard I would not be so sure about which Abrams they get and I know serious discussions about old U.S. Army Abrams have taken place. We could rebuild them like we did the Aust Abrams. M60's and T-72's ain't gonna cut it IMV for what the Iraqis have in mind.

-DA

[eckherl]

I know the armor is different. However, based on things I've heard I would not be so sure about which Abrams they get and I know serious discussions about old U.S. Army Abrams have taken place. M60's and T-72's ain't gonna cut it IMV.

-DA

They are in need of a estimation of around 800 tanks that are needed like right now, the only way they are going to get that many in a short period of time will be the realistic aspect of going after second rate armor which there is a abundance of. Look for Greece to be one of the biggest contributors with Poland right behind them.

I have already been informed that this proposal has a slim chance of getting past congress, and that is from a reliable source, General Dynamics who was pushing for the deal.

Also - are we not rotating heavy armor out of theater of operations and staging it in Kuwait.

[DarthAmerica]

They are in need of a estimation of around 800 tanks that are needed like right now, the only way they are going to get that many in a short period of time will be the realistic aspect of going after second rate armor which there is a abundance of. Look for Greece to be one of the biggest contributors with Poland right behind them.

I have already been informed that this proposal has a slim chance of getting past congress, and that is from a reliable source, General Dynamics who was pushing for the deal.

Also - are we not rotating heavy armor out of theater of operations and staging it in Kuwait.

They aren't looking for 800 though. It's a smaller number in addition to the older tanks. I still have reason to believe there is a chance this could go through. That's the feeling of more than a few of us but I won't bet any money one way or the other. And Kuwait really isn't out of theater if you know what I mean.

-DA

[F-15 Eagle]

Never ever. IF (a big if IMHO but maybe I am going to see a surprise) they get Abrams they are going to get refurbished ones.

Oh great downsize the U.S. tank force by 140 to give them to Iraq with a very uncertain future. Not only would it weaken America's tank force but 20 years from now the U.S. could go to war with Iraq again and the Iraqis could use those M1s that we gave to them against us for all we know. I really hope congress rejects this sale.

[F-15 Eagle]

Does anyone have a reliable source on how many M1 of all versions there are in US Army and USMC inventory ?

I'm not too sure but I think there are around 8000 maybe? Someone please correct me if I am wrong thanks.;)

[eckherl]

They aren't looking for 800 though. It's a smaller number in addition to the older tanks. I still have reason to believe there is a chance this could go through. That's the feeling of more than a few of us but I won't bet any money one way or the other. And Kuwait really isn't out of theater if you know what I mean.

-DA

Correct - the 800 number comes from second rate armor, they want to build a couple of armored battalions of a newer type tank. I guess we will have to see what happens with in the next 30 days to see how Congress approaches it. Yes - maybe a better comment should of been that they are being pulled out of the line of fire and staged in a more secure area.

[Chrom]

Money isn't going to be a problem for Iraq. I read an article today that said that the Iraqi government is projected to have well over $70 Billion of public revenue this year.
Money is ALWAYS a problem, especially for such ruined poor country as Iraq. Or do you think Iraq government should spend all money on new shiny tanks and let own peoples starve and die from lack of water? Because they still couldnt find the money to repair water supply lines?

There is one thing i would agree however: Iraq money is no problem for US government ;) Thats why M1 deal looks quite possible.

[winnyfield]

A few countries in the regional already have Abrams, so the Iraqis might get the same variant/s and logistics line. I suspect they're there just in case there are problems with Iran - Arab M1s vs Persian T72/M60. For the insurgency/ies the Iraqis have apparently been looking at MRAPs - the US looks likely to cut further orders.

Realistically of the western offerings, it was really on;y the M1 and Leclerc. The Germans are probably uncomfortable exporting Leo2s to Iraq while the Chally 2 production line (I think) has been closed for some while (not many surplus either). The French love exporting military equipment. The spanking that the Iraqis previously got from M1s probably had a impact.

[Chrom]

A few countries in the regional already have Abrams, so the Iraqis might get the same variant/s and logistics line. I suspect they're there just in case there are problems with Iran - Arab M1s vs Persian T72/M60. For the insurgency/ies the Iraqis have apparently been looking at MRAPs - the US looks likely to cut further orders.

Realistically of the western offerings, it was really on;y the M1 and Leclerc. The Germans are probably uncomfortable exporting Leo2s to Iraq while the Chally 2 production line (I think) has been closed for some while (not many surplus either). The French love exporting military equipment. The spanking that the Iraqis previously got from M1s probably had a impact.

Do you really think Iraq "government" opinion play/played any role in the decision?

[eckherl]

Do you really think Iraq "government" opinion play/played any role in the decision?

Actually it did, they can go with just about anyone or anywhere that they want including Russia but they will not chance pissing off the Ukrainians who have been there with support for them. Things will be interesting for Iraq during the next five years to see how their force structure is set up and the equipment that will be used, it will not be all U.S equipment.

[DarthAmerica]

Actually it did, they can go with just about anyone or anywhere that they want including Russia but they will not chance pissing off the Ukrainians who have been there with support for them. Things will be interesting for Iraq during the next five years to see how their force structure is set up and the equipment that will be used, it will not be all U.S equipment.

Chrom,

The Iraqi government is a sovern* entity. And they already operate a mix of equipment. On one of my last "jaunt's down the road" I saw a formation of Mi-17's and UH-1's, all Iraqi Army, conducting an air assault. I've been through IA check points where Iraqi Soldiers were armed with M1114's or Up Armored M998's with DShK HMGs. I've seen their "Joes" carrying M-16's and AK-47s with PKM for machine guns. So having Abrams and T series tanks is not going to be anything new from their experience.

Also, any notion that they don't have a choice is simply not true. They can buy whatever they want so long as it's available for sale and the USG has no issue with that. We are here to help, protect and advice not to dominate or control them.

-DA

[DavidDCM]

They have a number of T-tanks in service already, so the purchase of the M1 would cause a mix of Eastern and Western equipment in any way. If they could not handle that, than they would not even try to opt for the Abrams.

Their armoured forces so far are 77 refurbished T-72 received from Hungary in 2005 (see here (http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/nov2005/a111405tj1.html)) and according to Wikipedia another armoured battalion of 72 T-55 in service (no source here so could be a false information). I don't think they will retire the T-72 anytime soon.

[Chrom]

Chrom,

The Iraqi government is a sovern* entity. And they already operate a mix of equipment. On one of my last "jaunt's down the road" I saw a formation of Mi-17's and UH-1's, all Iraqi Army, conducting an air assault. I've been through IA check points where Iraqi Soldiers were armed with M1114's or Up Armored M998's with DShK HMGs. I've seen their "Joes" carrying M-16's and AK-47s with PKM for machine guns. So having Abrams and T series tanks is not going to be anything new from their experience.

Also, any notion that they don't have a choice is simply not true. They can buy whatever they want so long as it's available for sale and the USG has no issue with that. We are here to help, protect and advice not to dominate or control them.

-DA
Would be real idiotic if Iraq army wouldnt operate all kinds of equipment. Even NATO countries often operate russian equipment in ex. Afghanistan or Africa.

I dont believe in sov. Iraq government. And i dont see any controversy if USA-controlled Iraq government operate any equipment, even russian ones.

[DarthAmerica]

Would be real idiotic if Iraq army wouldnt operate all kinds of equipment. Even NATO countries often operate russian equipment in ex. Afghanistan or Africa.

I dont believe in sov. Iraq government. And i dont see any controversy if USA-controlled Iraq government operate any equipment, even russian ones.

Don't look at it from a political point of view. Think logistics, training and integration. The Iraqis will be working most closely with the USA and western nations with regard to military matters. Besides a small numbers of troops and no logistics infrastructure to speak of, Eastern Europe could have some additional concerns to sort out with the latest armor from that side of Europe. Also, don't discount the fact that the Iraqis have seen the Abrams from both sides of the gun. So they know specifically what it is they want.

-DA

[gf0012-aust]

They can buy whatever they want so long as it's available for sale and the USG has no issue with that. We are here to help, protect and advice not to dominate or control them.

-DA


Exactly - the Iraqi's have bought chinese gear and the USG has had no issue with it.,

[eckherl]

They have a number of T-tanks in service already, so the purchase of the M1 would cause a mix of Eastern and Western equipment in any way. If they could not handle that, than they would not even try to opt for the Abrams.

Their armoured forces so far are 77 refurbished T-72 received from Hungary in 2005 (see here (http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/nov2005/a111405tj1.html)) and according to Wikipedia another armoured battalion of 72 T-55 in service (no source here so could be a false information). I don't think they will retire the T-72 anytime soon.

They have more than just 77 T-72s that were given to them from Hungary, are you under the impression that we destroyed all the former ones that they had in service. And I have stated this on prior posts but here it goes again, Iraq has more Type 59 and 69s in service or boneyards than they do T-55s.:)

[eckherl]

Don't look at it from a political point of view. Think logistics, training and integration. The Iraqis will be working most closely with the USA and western nations with regard to military matters. Besides a small numbers of troops and no logistics infrastructure to speak of, Eastern Europe could have some additional concerns to sort out with the latest armor from that side of Europe. Also, don't discount the fact that the Iraqis have seen the Abrams from both sides of the gun. So they know specifically what it is they want.

-DA

Could you elaborate a little inregards to what Eastern Europe needs to be concerned with when it comes to their armor.:D

[Treachery]

Iraq doesn't need tanks. It needs infrastructure and basic social services.

This is insane. American weapon manufacturers have already made a lot of money and a lot of people in the US and overseas have become richer than they could ever dream of thanks to the disgraceful war in Iraq. Let's not turn it into a complete circus.

[DavidDCM]

They have more than just 77 T-72s that were given to them from Hungry, are you under the impression that we destroyed all the former ones that they had in service. And I have stated this on prior posts but here it goes again, Iraq has more Type 59 and 69s in service or boneyards than they do T-55s.:)

Are you hungry? The nation's called Hungary :D

And yes, indeed I had the false impression that you guys sweeped out their earlier equipment pretty good. Sorry bout that.
And most times I'm not imaginative enough to make a difference between T-55 and Type-59/69. I know they are different tanks, but their capabilities, design and I guess logistic footprints are very similar so I often treat them as the same.

Do you have exact numbers on Iraqs current ORBAT and ToE? :)

[DavidDCM]

Iraq doesn't need tanks. It needs infrastructure and basic social services.

This is insane. American weapon manufacturers have already made a lot of money and a lot of people in the US and overseas have become richer than they could ever dream of thanks to the disgraceful war in Iraq. Let's not turn it into a complete circus.

As someone stated in another forum, if Iraq could buy a neat package of new "infrastructure" in the supermarket they surely would, but it's not that easy.

[Feanor]

And of course it's a matter of securing the infrastructure and keeping it safe. It has also been noted that heavy armor in particular has proven itself extremely useless in Iraq and Afghan on the tactical level, when attached directly to infantry formation for a direct approach. They fullfill the role of assault guns of WWII, allowing dominating firepower on a tactical level.

EDIT: In that regard the M1's aren't a bad choice, in fact they're an excellent choice. If (an important if) the Iraqi's can keep them operation after the Americans leave which is really the third world dilemma. Most third world nations have the money to buy modern weapons, they just can't keep them maintained, with properly trained crews.

[eckherl]

Are you hungry? The nation's called Hungary :D

And yes, indeed I had the false impression that you guys sweeped out their earlier equipment pretty good. Sorry bout that.
And most times I'm not imaginative enough to make a difference between T-55 and Type-59/69. I know they are different tanks, but their capabilities, design and I guess logistic footprints are very similar so I often treat them as the same.

Do you have exact numbers on Iraqs current ORBAT and ToE? :)

OOPS! sorry for the mis-spell,

Iraq should be able to come up with around 150 T-72s and 200 T-55/Type59 and Type 69 tanks, parts are being salvaged off of combat kills and being brought in by other countries, including from China.

[DarthAmerica]

Could you elaborate a little inregards to what Eastern Europe needs to be concerned with when it comes to their armor.:D

They have to be able to provide an equivalent system to the package the Iraqis requested. Obviously, that isn't going to be knock off T-72's and such. It would have to be the more modern variants WITH the COMMs to integrate with the new Iraqi C4ISR network. Not an insurmountable task at all. But a bit more of a chore and a lot more expensive compared to refurbishing some old Soviet era tanks. I wasn't implying any tactical deficiencies whatsoever despite my obvious love of the Abrams system considering it was my first mount!

I merely wish to point out the real issue which is of course the logistics and integration. Many are going on about the problem of maintaining Abrams and cost without considering that in order for the Iraqis to get an equivalent capability elsewhere will still involve a lot of the same headaches just from a different buyer that they will be less connected to operationally speaking.

-DA

[eckherl]

They have to be able to provide an equivalent system to the package the Iraqis requested. Obviously, that isn't going to be knock off T-72's and such. It would have to be the more modern variants WITH the COMMs to integrate with the new Iraqi C4ISR network. Not an insurmountable task at all. But a bit more of a chore and a lot more expensive compared to refurbishing some old Soviet era tanks. I wasn't implying any tactical deficiencies whatsoever despite my obvious love of the Abrams system considering it was my first mount!

I merely wish to point out the real issue which is of course the logistics and integration. Many are going on about the problem of maintaining Abrams and cost without considering that in order for the Iraqis to get an equivalent capability elsewhere will still involve a lot of the same headaches just from a different buyer that they will be less connected to operationally speaking.

-DA

Agreed - the M1 series is not the logistical nightmare that everyone makes them out to be, not any more than other advanced tanks that are out there. Are they going to upgrade all of their tactical vehicles with the C4ISR networksystem. I know that Iraq was looking at Ukrainian T-84s at one point and felt that it was a capable advanced tank, it surely is just as good if not better than a Russian T-90A, but yes, the pickings for advanced Eastern armor is very slim.

[DarthAmerica]

Agreed - the M1 series is not the logistical nightmare that everyone makes them out to be, not any more than other advanced tanks that are out there. Are they going to upgrade all of their tactical vehicles with the C4ISR networksystem. I know that Iraq was looking at Ukrainian T-84s at one point and felt that it was a capable advanced tank, it surely is just as good if not better than a Russian T-90A, but yes, the pickings for advanced Eastern armor is very slim.

I don't want to get too far off on a tangent BUT. Just like modern warplanes, a lot of how effective these systems are is determined in the electronic domain. Take the M1117 for instance. A vehicle I had to use on a number instances. I attended special training on it and when I saw how much the electronics cost(mostly after market) my eyes almost popped out. Granted there are reasons we spend that money and if you know what I'm refering to you know why. But this is the way things are going. COMMS, EW and BFT technologies are critical considerations if you want to be modern. These things are real force multipliers and when we are talking about such a small number of tanks, only 140, you need this stuff to a certain extent. Now, I know Eastern tanks can be had with some pretty kick azz active protection systems and secure comms but this does futher complicate things logistically and can introduce interoperability issues that need to be worked out. You can have the biggest baddest tank, but if it can't talk to allies or reliably communicate with others then its lost a great deal of capability. It takes cold hard cash to work these kinds of issues out and we have had to do it on A LOT of vehicles. Again, its not a show stopper for a T-90, T-84 or other non US tank but it is something that would have to be considered. SHOOT, MOVE, COMMUNICATE. The Shooting part is often the easiest.

-DA

[eckherl]

I don't want to get too far off on a tangent BUT. Just like modern warplanes, a lot of how effective these systems are is determined in the electronic domain. Take the M1117 for instance. A vehicle I had to use on a number instances. I attended special training on it and when I saw how much the electronics cost(mostly after market) my eyes almost popped out. Granted there are reasons we spend that money and if you know what I'm refering to you know why. But this is the way things are going. COMMS, EW and BFT technologies are critical considerations if you want to be modern. These things are real force multipliers and when we are talking about such a small number of tanks, only 140, you need this stuff to a certain extent. Now, I know Eastern tanks can be had with some pretty kick azz active protection systems and secure comms but this does futher complicate things logistically and can introduce interoperability issues that need to be worked out. You can have the biggest baddest tank, but if it can't talk to allies or reliably communicate with others then its lost a great deal of capability. It takes cold hard cash to work these kinds of issues out and we have had to do it on A LOT of vehicles. Again, its not a show stopper for a T-90, T-84 or other non US tank but it is something that would have to be considered. SHOOT, MOVE, COMMUNICATE. The Shooting part is often the easiest.

-DA

Yes, these are the most critical aspects when operating on the battlefield, but they can shoe horn in any type of communications networking system that they want, example being - people were a little shocked during the first U.S Gulf war when some of the Iraqi tanks were set up with U.S radios along with Vincent devices. Surely some of our new NATO partners are operating with modern communication networking systems on board their older T- series tanks. Have you seen the cost of a M1A2 upgrade to SEP, all I can say is HOLY S_IT.

[Todjaeger]

... But this is the way things are going. COMMS, EW and BFT technologies are critical considerations if you want to be modern.
-DA

Could you elaborate on what BFT technologies are? It is not an acronym that I am familiar with.

-Cheers

[gf0012-aust]

Could you elaborate on what BFT technologies are? It is not an acronym that I am familiar with.

-Cheers


BFT=Blue Force Tracking.

Most coalition members use some form of it. The specials do at a minimum

It can be at individual or unit level. Think of it as a variation of IFF.

In the ADF's case, it means we can track our units in real time - esp important for strat and tactical awareness as well as DA events.

[V4.SKUNK]

Oh? They have ammunition problems?

As for being expensive, with a 4 million pound price tag that puts them at over 8 million per unit. T90 is ~3mil and M1 ~5Mil i thought.


There are no problems with CR2's L30 and ammo in Iraq.......This is the first i've heard about this...I've been in the Army for nearly 5 years...

CR2 would be the most expensive tank if it were for sale, until at least that new Japanese tank is produced...

EDIT:I've read a little more of this thread and have to say:
CR2 is not getting the L55 gun any more as CR2 will need redesigning to fit the 1 piece ammo in the hull and turret, it's simply too expensive to do this, there is talk of new ammo being developed for the L30 instead, as the current ammo was designed for the old L11(CR1), L30 is a much more capable gun, the specs of this gun are still a secret...

[Waylander]

Design new ammo?
There isn't even an ammunition factory left in the UK.
And there is nobody out there who produces two piece ammo for 120mm rifled guns.
The costs for developing new ammo for the L30 and getting a new production line online would be immense.

[eckherl]

There are no problems with CR2's L30 and ammo in Iraq.......This is the first i've heard about this...I've been in the Army for nearly 5 years...

CR2 would be the most expensive tank if it were for sale, until at least that new Japanese tank is produced...

EDIT:I've read a little more of this thread and have to say:
CR2 is not getting the L55 gun any more as CR2 will need redesigning to fit the 1 piece ammo in the hull and turret, it's simply too expensive to do this, there is talk of new ammo being developed for the L30 instead, as the current ammo was designed for the old L11(CR1), L30 is a much more capable gun, the specs of this gun are still a secret...

That is in fact a false statement, L16A1 propellant charges have in fact given inaccuracy issues when firing Charm three ammunition, isnt L27 and L27A1 designed for L30. you also have designed a L30A1. I will not even go into the Challenger 2 trials conducted by the Greeks who in fact found accuracy issues with a wide array of projectiles, the issue is the charges when fired during extreme temperatures, just ask yourself why the Arjun went with a full size combustable cartridge, I would agree with you that a design change would have to be done to the rear of the turret for a bustle loading system, but this should not be a show stopper or cost loads of money for this upgrade, and why even place a bulk supply of ammunition in the hull, not saying that it cannot be done because it can be done with the safety feature of blowoff panels as demonstrated on a XK2.

Challenger 2 not going with a L55 was decided when.

[Yasin20]

I would have thought they'd buy something more along the lines of the T80's which are still produced in the Ukraine, or the T90's produced by russia at the moment. The T90 is about half the price of an M1 and is Diesel rather then Turbine powered, so it would probably be easier to maintain.

But i guess its the decision of the Iraqi government and their US Advisors. Maybe they got scared off the T90 because its a T72 Derivative :cool:

if i recommend a tank for iraq it would be the T84 yatagon its better then the T90 and its good for all conditions and a good gun 120mm smoothe bore gun L50

[Feanor]

The problem of course is that like the M1, the T-90 has been exported a number of times, and is known to be reliable and for delivery to be on relatively on time. The T-84 has not yet entered serial production. So in essence Iraq would be paying for the tank and the additional costs associated with opening a new production line (sort of like India did with the original T-90 deal).

[skum2747]

Does anyone here feel that letting Iraq have one of the most powerful tanks in the world is somewhat disturbing for any reason? I am just curious.

[Feanor]

Does anyone here feel that letting Iraq have one of the most powerful tanks in the world is somewhat disturbing for any reason? I am just curious.

Not at all. I mean Saudis have them, and they're quite a bit more unpleasant then the current Iraqi government. Not to mention that the variant they're likely to get would be M1A1. I don't see the M1A2, never mind SEP, being sold to them. And it's only 140 units. Less then a single armored division.

[F-15 Eagle]

Not at all. I mean Saudis have them, and they're quite a bit more unpleasant then the current Iraqi government. Not to mention that the variant they're likely to get would be M1A1. I don't see the M1A2, never mind SEP, being sold to them. And it's only 140 units. Less then a single armored division.

In my honest opinion the U.S. needs to stop selling its weapons to countries that don't like them. This is a perfect example and those M1s would be better spent rebuilding the worn out equipment of the U.S. military from 7 years of fighting.

[eckherl]

Don`t start popping Champagne Cognac corks just yet, it still has not been decided on.

[radiosilence]

In my honest opinion the U.S. needs to stop selling its weapons to countries that don't like them. This is a perfect example and those M1s would be better spent rebuilding the worn out equipment of the U.S. military from 7 years of fighting.

Weapon sales not only generate revenue but also influence. In the case of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, two countries with some of the largest known oil reserves.

[Feanor]

In my honest opinion the U.S. needs to stop selling its weapons to countries that don't like them. This is a perfect example and those M1s would be better spent rebuilding the worn out equipment of the U.S. military from 7 years of fighting.

Of course. But a government, any government, is anything but honest. The guiding principles of a governments decisions aren't morals, they're based on pragmatism.

[skum2747]

Not at all. I mean Saudis have them, and they're quite a bit more unpleasant then the current Iraqi government. Not to mention that the variant they're likely to get would be M1A1. I don't see the M1A2, never mind SEP, being sold to them. And it's only 140 units. Less then a single armored division.

Hmm that makes sense. But I agree with a few folks. We really need to stop selling arms as powerful as the Abrams to folks who really don't like us or have a large contingent of people (i.e. terrorists, mercenaries, freedom fighters) who don't like us. One day these things will bite us in the rear. Granted that these countries as far as I know do not have the powerful NATO rounds that we use.

[V4.SKUNK]

That is in fact a false statement, L16A1 propellant charges have in fact given inaccuracy issues when firing Charm three ammunition, isnt L27 and L27A1 designed for L30. you also have designed a L30A1. I will not even go into the Challenger 2 trials conducted by the Greeks who in fact found accuracy issues with a wide array of projectiles, the issue is the charges when fired during extreme temperatures, just ask yourself why the Arjun went with a full size combustable cartridge, I would agree with you that a design change would have to be done to the rear of the turret for a bustle loading system, but this should not be a show stopper or cost loads of money for this upgrade, and why even place a bulk supply of ammunition in the hull, not saying that it cannot be done because it can be done with the safety feature of blowoff panels as demonstrated on a XK2.

Challenger 2 not going with a L55 was decided when.

I think the L27 was manufactured for CR2's release, but it was designed around the L11 gun.
The L30a1 is also the gun currently used on CR2.
British CR2's have had little to no problems in Iraq with the charges failing to detonate properly.
When did the army ever decide to use L55??? They never did, they only tested 1 gun for evaluation, and decided it's no good for the CR2(Turret and hull re-design). IMO if CR2 was ever going to get a smoothbore it would have been the L44 when CR2 was being designed......

[eckherl]

I think the L27 was manufactured for CR2's release, but it was designed around the L11 gun.
The L30a1 is also the gun currently used on CR2.
British CR2's have had little to no problems in Iraq with the charges failing to detonate properly.
When did the army ever decide to use L55??? They never did, they only tested 1 gun for evaluation, and decided it's no good for the CR2(Turret and hull re-design). IMO if CR2 was ever going to get a smoothbore it would have been the L44 when CR2 was being designed......

Janes announced a month back that the L55 project is in fact officially dropped due to defence budget issues, this was announced and confimed after my last post on the subject.

As far as propellant performance issues I will stand by my coments inregards to it.

[eckherl]

Oh Boy,

Iraq just may in fact get the M1A1 a total in excess of 260 of them, the bugger though is that they will be new knock off kits compared to a certain version recieved by Egypt, so ha ha, no U.S military versions with certain technologies will be made available.

[kato]

Well, it's not like the US has a lot of tank designs to throw around that can be financed through FMS money. 15, 20 years ago they would have had to make do with third-hand M48 or M60.

[Waylander]

Yeeehaw, that's defenitely what they need...oh no wait it's not.

Ok, US companies might get back the FMS money with maintenance contracts that's a plus.

[carman1877]

I think it could be a good idea if we train them and help them to use them properly. Howevere with that said we have to amke sure that like in Afghanistan they dont use our equipmetn against us. only if talliban or who ever(dont know much about Middle East) could steal the tanks. but that is not likely to happen.

[eckherl]

Yeeehaw, that's defenitely what they need...oh no wait it's not.

Ok, US companies might get back the FMS money with maintenance contracts that's a plus.

I am just happy that they are not getting a true U.S or Australian operating version, and you know Waylander that there is money to be made on those knock off kits, or monkey models.:D

[eckherl]

Well, it's not like the US has a lot of tank designs to throw around that can be financed through FMS money. 15, 20 years ago they would have had to make do with third-hand M48 or M60.

That is true Kato,

But, they are also still slated for M-60 series tanks.

[Feanor]

So if they get 260 M1s, will they need the M60's? I'm not sure what the composition of Iraqi infantry and mech. units is, but I know they only have 1 tank div. atm.

[eckherl]

So if they get 260 M1s, will they need the M60's? I'm not sure what the composition of Iraqi infantry and mech. units is, but I know they only have 1 tank div. atm.

260 M1 series tanks is a drop in the bucket to meet all of Iraqs military ground force structure, additional tanks will be needed, the more advanced weapons systems will be geared to work more in line with U.S ground forces.

[Feanor]

What tank units does the Iraqi Army plan to have, that 260 tanks are a drop in a bucket? multiple tank divisions? Armored units in regular mechanized and light infantry divisions?

[eckherl]

What tank units does the Iraqi Army plan to have, that 260 tanks are a drop in a bucket? multiple tank divisions? Armored units in regular mechanized and light infantry divisions?

Yes, for the force structure that they have a need for or envision at least is to have tank levels that can support at least a major confrontation with hostile neighbors, as far as what type of TO&E that they decide to go with remains to be seen, I have heard that some of it will be set up as a U.S force structure while maybe retaining a Russian force structure with certain units, the verdict is still out on that one. This only factors in a active duty structure, we also have to see where the Reserve units play into the overall security of Iraq and what level of training they recieve.