Iraqi brigade swaps Abrams for T-90S tanks

[Sineva]

Another problem may have been the fact that iranian allied militias were also publicly using them which was very embarrassing for the us and iraqi governments.Supposedly this led to general dynamics withdrawing maintenance support for the iraqi abrams,so the current operational state/readiness of the iraqi abrams force might be very poor.So in light of that replacing the abrams with the t-90ms makes a lot of sense.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/abrams-iraq-1042703768

 

[Ceylal]

Even without the added protection of DU or reactive armour the M1 is the most survivable of any tank in the Iraqi inventory. Over the past five years around five (5) of the 140 Iraqi Abrams were penetrated/total losses.

Dixit an idiot who's country has never won a war..
This is a Saudi Abrams to a Houthi Kornet..

https://www.facebook.com/

Iraqi Tank brigades was led by officers bought by US operatives in Iraq, a year prior, to the invasion..Treason behavior runs high in the Middle East and the Masri in question, Frogman..knows well that no one can hold the candle to the Egyptian's officer corps in that arena..

 

[Frogman]

This is a Saudi Abrams to a Houthi Kornet..

Traditionally the most armoured parts of a tank are the front and the front side nearest the driver. The rear and belly are the least armoured because they rarely face the enemy and having the same thickness all across a tank results in a lead box that's far too heavy.

So showing a Kornet going up the arse of a KSA M1 engine as proof of it not being any good is a bit like saying body armour is useless because a dude was shot in the head.

The tank isn't invincible and only dullards continue to argue that point.

It's gas turbine engine is a gas guzzler and service intensive
Making frequently mandatory pitstop not suitable for military with limited resources

It's a gas guzzler according to anyone who hasn't actually operated it or spoken to anyone that has crewed it. It will easily hit its billed range marker and go beyond it with fuel management.

Also the turbine engine simply lasts longer than its diesel counterparts. Giving you more time between major overhauls decreasing the cost of lifetime maintenance. Not to mention that you can feed it any type of fuel and it will still run. With better performance to boot!

Useful if you're an Army with limited resources.

Robust and simple Russian design Vs Complicated albeit capable US design.

Which is a conclusion based on reputation alone. No one focuses on the dramas faced by those operating the latest Russian tanks.


Can't help but notice the argument has moved from its ability to operate in the desert to logistic support to protection. Goal posts are continually shifted.

Also everyone seems to have missed the point of this article. They're not replacing the bloody Abrams! They're moving them to another brigade for the incoming T-90.

 

[Mhmoud]

Another problem may have been the fact that iranian allied militias were also publicly using them which was very embarrassing for the us and iraqi governments.Supposedly this led to general dynamics withdrawing maintenance support for the iraqi abrams,so the current operational state/readiness of the iraqi abrams force might be very poor.So in light of that replacing the abrams with the t-90ms makes a lot of sense.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/abrams-iraq-1042703768

I do think that an adequate replacement would have been the T-90MS until the case could be resolved or another NATO-type tank is ordered. However, we are seeing the T-90 standard, which I believe is due to the budgetary constraints of Iraq, since the MS costs double the A1 Abrams, according to some sources.

So I'm thinking that it is a stopgap until Iraq takes back the (now nonworking) tanks and resolves the dispute, as 140 Abrams is quite a number, and half that number of T-90s is not enough to replace the capability of the Abrams.

 

[Signalian]

On topic;
https://sputniknews.com/military/201806171065495210-t90-abrams-iraq-analysis/


and

@Kaptaan @Umair Nawaz

For both of you, the answer is; offering toned-down export versions Just doesn't cut it.

 

[My-Analogous]

A lemon that has consistently stood up to modern atgm threats in Iraq?

Even without the added protection of DU or reactive armour the M1 is the most survivable of any tank in the Iraqi inventory. Over the past five years around five (5) of the 140 Iraqi Abrams were penetrated/total losses.

You're chatting out of your arse about something you have zero clue about. It's not an invincible tank (no tank is).

I don't see other countries lining up their tanks to take Kornets to their sides. So maybe they're the ones with the fancy scary looking lemons.

Read it again. Those were for US armed forces, for others they are not selling same tank.American M1A1 Abrams Tank have DEPLETED URANIUM (armor) coating; this is arguably the best armor protection for a Tank in existence. However, [export] model does not have this armor protection; it have relatively inferior BURLINGTON COMPOSITE armor. American M1A1 Abrams Tank have superior protection and performance then its [export] model.

dont know....M1A1 most likely or A2.

M1A1 Abrams Tank
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/m1-t...istan-separating-facts-from-the-myths.409993/

 

[Signalian]

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/m1-t...istan-separating-facts-from-the-myths.409993/

I had fun visiting the old thread in your post. Good old days

 

[Frogman]

Read it again.

I literally said the Iraqi Abrams doesn't have DU in that post you quoted.

Of course the US Abrams has better performance than most of the export models. The composite armour on the Iraqi M1 has already proven its resilience against modern atgm threats.

For both of you, the answer is; offering toned-down export versions Just doesn't cut it.

The Iraqis received a export version of the T-90. One that doesn't feature any active protection systems and watered down passive protection.

The term monkey model was literally popularised by the Russians after the M1 swept their T series tanks in the Gulf wars.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Read it again. Those were for US armed forces, for others they are not selling same tank.American M1A1 Abrams Tank have DEPLETED URANIUM (armor) coating; this is arguably the best armor protection for a Tank in existence. However, [export] model does not have this armor protection; it have relatively inferior BURLINGTON COMPOSITE armor. American M1A1 Abrams Tank have superior protection and performance then its [export] model.


M1A1 Abrams Tank
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/m1-t...istan-separating-facts-from-the-myths.409993/

actually the version offered in 87 wasnt M1A1 it was only M1 abrams...that article has rubbish and childish arguments based on some Random Hindu Gupte and some Zaloga whom nobody has ever heard of.

This Tank doesnt work! even iraq is also replacing them today as seen in this thread and nor America's ally of next 100 years India has ever brought them either. Not even its latest SEP version.

There is a reason why today America is cutting its bradley and Abrams divisions, and have finally decided to use its new found experience of fighting in deserts to build a complete new light tank...Who can be more mobile and agile and can be dropped from air in any theater of the world. Israelis r doing the same with their Markava series.

We were right all along. Thats why after patton no western tank has seen service in Pakistan not even a French or German Tank.

 

[LeGenD]

actually the version offered in 87 wasnt M1A1 it was only M1 abrams...that article has rubbish and childish arguments based on some Random Hindu Gupte and some Zaloga whom nobody has ever heard of.

I agree that US offered original M1 Abrams to Pakistan. One of the members of this forum was able to dig into this matter and pointed out that it wasn't M1A1.

This Tank doesnt work! even iraq is also replacing them today as seen in this thread and nor America's ally of next 100 years India has ever brought them either. Not even its latest SEP version.

Real reason pointed out in this article: http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/02...tia-hands-in-iraq-sparks-assistance-standoff/

Learn more from here: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-ditches-u-s-m1-abrams-for-russian-t-90-tanks

There is a reason why today America is cutting its bradley and Abrams divisions, and have finally decided to use its new found experience of fighting in deserts to build a complete new light tank...Who can be more mobile and agile and can be dropped from air in any theater of the world. Israelis r doing the same with their Markava series.

We were right all along. Thats why after patton no western tank has seen service in Pakistan not even a French or German Tank.

They are cutting down such divisions because there isn't any need to maintain them in the long-term. They envision a highly mobile and high-tech force to contest battles of the future, not necessarily the largest in numbers.

They are upgrading hundreds of M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams variants to latest M1A2 SEPv3 standard: https://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2018/01/battle-tanks-vetronics-upgrade.html

 

[Umair Nawaz]

I agree that US offered original M1 Abrams to Pakistan. One of the members of this forum was able to dig into this matter and pointed out that it wasn't M1A1.


Real reason pointed out in this article: http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/02...tia-hands-in-iraq-sparks-assistance-standoff/

Learn more from here: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-ditches-u-s-m1-abrams-for-russian-t-90-tanks


They are cutting down such divisions because there isn't any need to maintain them in the long-term. They envision a highly mobile and high-tech force to contest battles of the future, not necessarily the largest in numbers.

They are upgrading hundreds of M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams variants to latest M1A2 SEPv3 standard: https://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2018/01/battle-tanks-vetronics-upgrade.html

SEPv3 is a stop gap decision it seems.

 

[Signalian]

Out of 140 M1A1 Abrams the Iraqis received, 1/3 were lost in 3 months in combat, only 40 M1A1 were operational after 2-3 years, rest got destroyed, damaged or captured by opposing forces.