"Continued air support by the USA will be critical."
This is 100% true. But would you not agree that this is entirely dependent on the election of Republican president? Something that will be difficult---primarily because we will still have troops on the ground on 11/2008. How do I know this? Because Bush has said so. In fact, this is the one thing we know for sure about the schedule in Iraq---Bush has said in advance that you will not be the one to terminate the campaign. The reason is, ironically, that he is weak.
"Plus we have massive amounts of mothballed armor that even WE should be pulling out for use in Iraq. An M113 upgraded to A4 with the full ACAV kit is a formidable APC. It's what should've already replaced most of those Humvees."
This sounds interesting. However, since we overlooked it four or other forces I suppose we will overlook it for Iraq.
"There are upgrade kits (originally designed by the Israelis) that can give the T-55 the combat capability of an M48A5. Both of which have been used to good effect by them."
Again, I lack the expertise to evaluate this idea. The fact is, as far as I can see, the US has not addressed the question of Iraqi tanks at all. They have simply purchased some used ones from some Europeans, utilizing money in their budget.
"It's nowhere as good as an Abrams, but one has to consider the possibility of Abrams tanks becoming the property of Iran. Same goes with Apache attack helicopters."
Reluctantly, I'll admit you have a point. I still haven't completely reconciled myself to looking at things this way.
"I would have the Iraqi's scrap all of the T-72's, their side/rear armor is actually weaker than the T-55's. And they blow up like tracked pipe-bombs due to the large quantity of combustible-case ammo in that small tank"
An interesting analysis that I had not heard before. Are you ex-military or just someone interested in the subject?
"Again, I lack the expertise to evaluate this idea. The fact is, as far as I can see, the US has not addressed the question of Iraqi tanks at all. They have simply purchased some used ones from some Europeans, utilizing money in their budget."
Just like them to buy from the back-stabbers at higher cost, than to use US components to upgrade what they already have eh? The upgrade involves the same steering system as the Abrams plus the tank engine, transmission, fire-control, 105mm cannon, and gun-stablilization of the M48A5.
"Are you ex-military or just someone interested in the subject?"
I'm ex-Navy, but I've always had high interest in all things military. From infantry to satellites. In the early weeks of the Iraq campaign many Bradley crew were stunned when they shot at T-72's to distract them (so that an Abrams could come from a direction they weren't looking) and the tanks blew up. When they examined the wreckage they found the AP rounds had cleanly pierced the hull/turret sides at ranges that had no effect on T-55/62 tanks. With a T-72 the ammo is stored in the bottom under a grate, so the burning depleted-uranium fragments just needed gravity to finish the job.