Yes it did... wait until their American soldier shooting police force gets their hands on them.

Stupid.....  

This x10000

Come on guys, the Abrams is an awesome tank, no one is arguing that, but lets be honest here.  Both times we rolled into Iraq most of their army was wiped out by bombs and hellfires, there were only a few substantial tank battles and in every one we kicked their asses HARD.  Do you really think selling them a few watered down tanks is going to have any impact if we ever have to fight them again?  I saw good for them, hopefully it makes us some money, and will help stabilize Iraq so we can get out of there.

we also sold f-14's to iran in the 1970's. we had techs there showing them how to use  and maintain them..  then the gov. was overthrown,  the techs sabatoged them when the left the country.

eta:   someone beat me to this. saw a program on history channel.  the weapons system was what the techs sabatoged. planes were supposed to have been grounded shortly after from lack of spare parts.

????  The armor of the Abrams is all Chobham-type....that was the whole point of building the M1 Abrams in the first place.  It is more resistant to HEAT-type rounds (shaped-charge, or chemical-reaction type anti-tank rounds vs. tungsten or DU solid penetrators).

The M1A1SA is the "Situational Awareness" model, and from another message board: "What the crews particularly like about these SA (Situational Awareness) models is the new Blue Force Tracker (BFT) gear, which reliably shows them where all friendly (BFT equipped) vehicles are at all times, on a map display.  Then there is the new and improved thermal sights, that provide better images at longer ranges (exact range is secret, but said to be over two kilometers).  The .50 caliber machine-gun topside gets a thermal sight.  There is now a phone box mounted on the side, for the infantry to use to talk to the crew.  There are a lot of upgrades and improvements in the electrical system, many based on soldier suggestions.  The experience in Iraq has thus produced a version of the M-1 that is optimized for infantry support."

From my past experience as a USMC tanker on M60A1 (RISE-Passive), the M1A1 is heads-and-shoulders above the M-60 series....MUCH more reliable, less maintenance-intensive, higher readiness rate, and is MUCH MUCH more lethal on the battlefield.  Sort of like comparing a Ford Festiva to, say, an Audi A8 on a road course race: NO COMPARISON.

T-72s are OLD peices of shit....small, cramped, outdated fire-control systems and only decent at short ranges.  Even old M60-series tanks have nearly TWICE the effective killing range of T-72s/T-80s/whatever.  In 1982, an Israeli tank equipped with the L7 NATO-standard 105mm rifled main gun (originally a British design) and firing an APDS (Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot solid penetrator) round, took out a Syrian T-72; what is remarkable is that the solid APDS penetrator not only when through the front hull (traditionally the thickest part of a tank's armor, and sloped in an attempt to deflect incoming rounds) but also the mid-ship bulkhead (separating the crew compartment from the engine compartment) AND the engine block!  The Russians were stunned, and I've since seen videos of American engineers and designers shooting the same rounds, as well as the DU APDS/APFSDS rounds, through T-62s, T-55s, and T-72 captured by the Israelis in the same manner, and the penetrators could be seen exiting the rear of the engine block.... WOW!  IIRC, the T-72 also has an auto-loader feature standard, which makes the gunner/tank commander have to depress the main gun all the way in order for the shell casing to eject out of the rear of the turret.... this creates a HUGE lag time in between shots, as the gunner/TC have to re-acquire their targets each time!  Sort of like shooting a bolt-action rifle against a semi-auto rifle in a gunfight.  The Russians & Ukranians have provided all kinds of "upgrades" to the T-72/T-80/T-90 series but the bottom line is that the best upgrade for these pieces of shit is to switch to an entirely new tank design.

I'm sick of hearing how "great" the German Leopard 2 tanks are....BULLSHIT!  The Germans and their damn tanks are like that one friend we ALL have, who has a super-nice and super-clean immaculate car and/or gun, but NEVER puts them to use....yet he talks all kind of smack about how great that car or gun would perform if really put to the test, but will never be tested since that might mean two things: A) the car/gun gets a scratch or mark on it, and/or B) its shortcomings may actually be exposed.  Yes, the Germans have the nicest and best military equipment, especially tanks, for not begin combat-tested.  They look great for dog-and-pony shows while lots of dignitaries, VIPs, and cameras are present, and they also look good in parades & inspections.  But how do they perform in REAL combat?  We will probably never know.  Not even our NATO allies equipped with Leopard 2 tanks want to put them to the test either, which really makes me wonder about their true effectiveness.

The best tanks in the world are clearly M1A1/M1A2-series and the British Challengers; at least the Brits aren't afraid to combat-test their equipment!!!  **ADD-IN: Isreali Merkava 3 & 4-series** PISS ON the Leopard 2s!  If they are so great, why did the Australians decline them in favor of M1A1s, especially when they were staunch users of Leopard 1s for so long?  And the REFORGER exercises used to really illustrate the lack of effectiveness of German armored forces compared to American & British, since the German tankers couldn't even perform the most basic maintenance on their tanks ("Ja, we threw a track pad, we better park on the side of the road and wait for the mechanics to come fix it."  RUBBISH!!!).  So please spare me with comparisons of German, Swedish, and French tanks vs. American & British tanks.  PLUS, the Swedish STRV is a modified Leopard 2 anyway.  The LeClerc 2 is just another AMX piece of trash, besides it's French!  Who the hell would ever take the French military, let alone military equipment, seriously????

Equipping the IA with these M1A1SAs is a good idea, as they are on the front line in the stand against Iran.  When I finished my 7-year stint in Desert Shield/Storm, all the Arab nations in the Gulf Region were extremely concerned with Iranian sword-rattling...so I can only imagine how paranoid they must be now.

And for the nay-sayers, if we really really had to take those M1A1s out, our superior air-ground attack forces would handily knock them out....if another nation ever developed their Close Air Support to the level our Armed Forces have, our military would be in real trouble.  What will help the IA maintain an edge over Iranians & others will be the lack of effective Iranian close air support.

Correct.  However, they are like the F-16s we were going to sell to Pakistan: dumbed-down radar and fire control systems, so they are NOWHERE near as effective as the American versions.  They are basically just for parade & media fly-overs (as well as the ever-famous PhotoShopping opportunities for media dupes).

CORRECTAMUNDO.

Syria uses T-72s, which are basically garbage.  We won't allow Syria to have M1-anythings.

And Israel declined purchasing M1s, although they were offered sweetheart deals several times.  They felt that they got more "bang for the buck" from their Merkavas, which are outstanding MBTs.  Merkavas are based on battlefield experiences, and it is no secret that the Israelis get a LOT more mileage out of discarded tanks than anyone else in the world (M51 Ishermans, M48-series, M60-series, and Centurions, not to mention captured T55s and T62s).

Incorrect Iran also recieved the Aim 54.

the export version is "downgraded"  I was on a training team for the Saudi's and the Eqyptians.... I couldn't find anything different.. the "rumor" was that their nav and fire control systems could be turned off via satellite... that's just the rumor.. btw... Saddam got 2 M1's waaaay back in the day during the Iran-Iraq war.. they were specially made with a 125 mm gun from a T72... no one has found one yet... no one knows where they went... true museum pieces for vehicle collector buffs.. the only 2 of their type ever made... kind of a suck up offering to keep killing Iranians... that was the policy of the time.  bit of trivia for you folks.

Yeah and I'm sure a few will end up in Russia  &  China to be torn down and documented to build thier own !!!

Word for word from three different public sources;

"M1A1 Export variants, with the export armor package and different options (such as multi-fuel diesel engines) ..."

So, likely NOT the DU/Ceramic "chobham" armor, NOT the fire control package, and NOT the turbine engine.

But, still.. a significant improvement.  The M1 has a fearsome reputation.  Any hypothetical opposition Iranian armor commanders aren't going to be making the distinction between US and Export Abrams - they're going to be busy wetting themselves greatly, based on the Abrams reputation.  (Well, that'd be a good sales pitch, at the least...)

I spent some time with some SA model abrams the other day and can say that they are day and night compared to a regular M1A1.   the iraqi army will not be getting these for a loong time.....

When did Iran get the Mig 29s? I thought they bought some Su Flankers or some shit a few years back.

Thanks!  In fact, I'm enjoying a cold Stella Artois at this moment .

It's often said that the most dangerous thing in the world is a newly commissioned 2nd Lt. with a map and compass.  It isn't.  

Instead, it's a young Soldier or Marine with multiple combat tours and enough first hand, practical-application experience in geo-politics to make the most tenured professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University feel like a simple dumbass (which he or she probably would be anyway).  Turn said individual loose on a forum freqented by those spouting left-wing dogma, and the results are predictable:  Common sense (accompanied by a healthy dose of cynicism) prevails, and liberal campaign slogans are made to look like the straw-man arguements that they are.  All this from a young Soldier probably on his first enlistment.  Daemon734 gets it (as usual), so why can't everyone else?

God forbid this guy ever gets out and goes to school.  He'll cause riots on campus, hilarity will ensue-a must see.

I'm buying the beer if he ever makes it to NC.    

Monkey hear, monkey repeat.

We were through, weren't we.  

Excellent post.  Well said.  3rd TkBn?

Yep, might as well leave 20 or 30K M-16 laying around for someone to pickup when the Iraqi army scatters.
We have left them almost every where else.

"Cobbled together" is exactly right.  Last I heard, Iranian F14s (you know, the ones that the Pentagon wanted to destroy in a campaign of air strikes in 1979, but Carter refused because he didn't want to perturb the Iranians) were using Russian and Chinese engines.  Yes, they are that desperate, if you know how bad those engines are.  As for avionics (without which an airplane become an expensive noise-machine), who knows?  The value of Iranian F14s is confined to propaganda purposes only, at this point.    

The Iranian Air Force is a joke.  It would be eradicated in about two days if fighting ever broke out.  While the Iranian armed forces might be more capable and fight better than the Iraqis, that isn't saying much.  Faith in Allah only goes so far, and doesn't replace up-to-date or upgraded weapons systems supported by a well funded log train.

Are they paying for these or are we? This shit has to stop. I pay almost 50% taxes and it could easily be 25% if we didn't give money to Hamas and fund Pelosi's Jet and pig odors.

Better to equip them with old Soviet tanks like the T-72.

Sold

Actually, the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 other than providing real-estate for Al Queda to train on...

And we armed the folks that later became the Northern Alliance - the Taliban were largely a creation of the Paki ISI.

We *have* to re-arm Iraq, or when we leave Iran WILL invade.

And we have to re-arm them with adequate western weponry too, to go with the western military tactics we are teaching them!

Would you rather them buy their weapons & more importantly WEAPONS PARTS and FUTURE UPGRADES from the RUSSIANS?

Fuck that! The US arms industry is one of the few that can stand on it's own in the face of foreign competition WITHOUT tariffs & protectionist measures...

We should be actively seeking more customers for our weapons (We do make the best, after all)....

They are on par with (or slightly better than, if we're talking new production) the M1s the Kuwaitis, Saudis and Egyptians have....

And better than the Russian bullshit that MOST of their neighbors field...

And shot them all in the Iran Iraq war...

Their supply of spare parts was very limited, and the F-14s are essentially reduced to recon & AWACS duties at this point (the ones that still fly, anyhow)....

They're paying....

Bullshit they have more than that flying.  Hell they even figured out how to make Hawk SAM as a replacement for the AIM54s

Awesome! They'd probably be like 10grands lol I can now build my own tank force!

What about the junker planes Iran bought from Russia? I heard they got some su-27s or something.

Bullshit?

How long can they keep all 12 flying during a conflict? They started with 40-ish planes F-14s. The 12 or so shown in their dog and pony show will be down to 4-5 when they start picking parts off of other Tomcats to keep some in the air. The weapons they make are not very impressive compared to ANY western missles.

And WTF do you figure we've been doing with our Leo2s? And Denmark too?

You are such a shitbird.  Start your separation paperwork already.

After long consideration, I am not a proponent of attacking Iran.

Their Air Force is ineffectual, that is true, but it need not be strong for the Iranians to achieve their objectives.

The Iranians have been strong supporters of asymmetrical warfare for a long time now.  They know how to fight insurgencies and use irregulars to engage mechanized forces.  They have supplied terrorists in many countries and militias in Iraq and Lebanon.  They know that fighting on our terms would yield them a loss.

So they have bought a large number of missiles which they would use to attempt to deny us the use of the skies and the seas.  I am not sure that their air defenses will perform an adequate job of doing what they were purchased to do, given the easy manner in which the Israelis bypassed a similar Russian built system in Syria.  But even then, they need not prevent our planes from flying over their territory.  The need only to deny us targets.

We can hit anything we want, but knowing what to hit is much more difficult.  Essential government services can be spread out.  Laboratories and factories can be moved or buried for the duration.  Military equipment can be hidden.  If they are like the Serbs, they will stick a telephone pole out of a shed and allow us to waste a sortie and a JDAM on it.

Meanwhile, they have anti-ship missiles tucked away on the shores.  They can be fired in large numbers from short range.  The target can be a tanker, a surface combatant, anything of that sort.

If we are foolish enough to enter their country, I predict greater difficulties still.  The country is two and a half times larger than Afghanistan with twice as many people, almost all of whom reside in the mountainous regions.  

The Iranians are technically and tactically proficient enough to use the same kind of tactics that their agents in Iraq have used to great effect.  Anticipate IEDs and EFPs, snipers, and the like from the beginning.  Also, the Iranians have a love affair with martyrs and suicide bombing.  They believe that dying for your country is an honor, and they will not be deterred by casualties.  They are more nationalistic than the Iraqis.  Instead of engaging in a four or more way civil war they will have only one enemy.

As for logistics, the Iranians would not try to emulate an American logistical structure but rather one more like Mao's.  And it would work better than we would like to think.

America has no real doctrine for counterinsurgency warfare in the absence of a host government, and we can anticipate that establishing one hastily would mean that it would not be viewed as legitimate.

So I don't think that our future would look very bright if it involved anything more than a very limited strike against Iran.

Do we have to go through this yet again? How many times since 2003 have we addressed this issue?

We never armed Iraq. We provided Iraq satellite intelligence when they were fighting Iran, but no weapons.

As far as Osama, are you friggin' nuts?

Not all T-72's are equal, you know. Most T-72 clients, including all of the Middle East, got the monkey model. Iraq had these and domestically-produced copies of even worse quality.

A bare-bones tank that hasn't been upgraded in decades and has simple steel plate armor, firing obsolete HEAT or even solid steel rounds, versus a tank with composite armor, ERA, and modern AP ammo? Which outnumbers them? And has full air superiority, so the majority of Iraqi tanks are getting obliterated by missiles that would annihilate ANY tank in existence? No contest, T-72 loses.

A Russian late-model T-72 with a better engine, composite armor and ERA, modern laser rangefinder and thermal sights, modern ammo, active defense systems, and a crew that actually trained is going to do a lot better than Achmed, Akbar, and Ramma-lamma-ding-dong in their Lion of Babylon T-72 that Saddam had built from spare parts back in the 80's. Not as good as the Abrams (since, you know, there's a freaking twenty ton difference between them) obviously, but a heck of a lot better than what the Middle East is fielding.

Bragging about the T-72 being junk because Iraqi tanks got ass raped by total air superiority, a massive technology gap, numerical superiority, AND better training is like bragging about the FAL being junk because some poor bastard by himself with nothing but his FAL and steel-pot helmet got owned by a whole platoon of Army Rangers with the latest gear.

So, to conclude: Iraqi (and by extent Iranian and Syrian) T-72's were, by and large, shit. The T-72 itself, is not.

See something of an influence on the design there? They couldn't rip it off like they did the humvee and the Eurocopter, but they definitely were taking notes. No idea how good it is though. Could be a pretty effective tank, or it could be utter shit. We'll see.

Merkava is the absolute best tank in the world... for Israel. The Abrams would have been a great performer for the Synia region, not so much for the Golan and West Bank, Merkava does better in the Golan, and West Bank and can also perform alright in the Synia region. They made the right choice. As to your other post about the Leopard, the Leopard 2A6EX is a great tank. As to it not being put to the test, guess what type of tanks are the only ones operating in Afghanistan, Leopard 2A6DK and Leopard2A6CA. The Danish contingent and the Canadians have Leopard 2's and they aren't shy about using them in Helmland.

For Example:

That is an absolute rumor that has been debunked more times than I can count by some very knowledgeable people. It's like the damn Mattel M-16 myth, or the basic training buffer suicide story, fucker just won't die.

How do you figure that?

I can't think of a better way to put into words what you just said. Bravo to the both of you.

Last I heard, they are using their massive oil money fund to purchase these.

They are getting refurbed T72's to supplement the refurbed T-72's they alredy have as their primary MBT. The number of Abrams they have will make it part of a more high tiech armored unit, sort of like how we used to have the 4th ID as te Digital Division.

I expect better from even you man. The Chinese didn't rip off shit with the Type 96 or Type 98. They wised up and used a turret made of welded armor instead of the same old cast armor that the Russians use. Even the Russians figuered this out witht he Welded turret of the T-90s.

Ok, here is a question for those who can do AFV ID. What is this.

Zulfiqar

It's like a mini M1 isnt it?  Kind of the reverse aproach of what the rooskies took with the B1ski

Thanks!  Yes, and the 1st (my fave!)

You?

4th Tanks, went to Knox in '87, back when Cordero, Carrol, Watts, and McKlintock were all SSgts.

Haven't heard, but I'd LOVE to know!  Got any reports for us?