"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.
"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."
Quite interesting. I was never in the service but have read fairly extensively in military history. I'm a little weak on current and recent weaponry though, did more reading about the Civil War, Korean War, Vietnam, World War II, etc.