not the T-90...
Posted on 09/16/2015 10:35:36 AM PDT by Trumpinator
Dave Majumdar
September 15, 2015
Russia's Lethal T-90 Tank vs. ISIS' Captured M1 Abrams: Who Wins?
With Russia’s surprise move to deploy ground forces to Syria, the remote possibility that Russian forces might confront Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) operated M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks emerges.
According to numerous media reports, the Russian military has deployed a half dozen T-90 main battle tanks, 15 self-propelled heavy artillery pieces and thirty-five infantry fighting vehicles along with about 200 naval infantrymen—basically marines—into the war ravaged nation. The Russian forces appear to be building an airbase as a staging area to bring in additional military supplies for the beleaguered Syrian government.
While the chances of a direct confrontation between Russian forces in the area and ISIS operated armor are fairly remote, there is a small possibility that could happen. ISIS has destroyed or captured a number of the Iraqi Army’s 140 M1A1 SA Abrams tanks. While many of these tanks were destroyed using anti-tank missiles, at least a few were captured and may continue to be operated by the terrorist organization. Most of those Abrams tanks are probably operating in Iraq (if they are still functional), but it’s not completely inconceivable that ISIS might move some into Syria.
So how would ISIS’ Abrams fare versus the best Russian-owned and operated tanks? Probably not very well—the Russian crews are professional soldiers, with proper training, tactics and a functional logistical train. ISIS, meanwhile, might have some veterans of Saddam Hussein’s army, but they aren’t exactly experts at employing an Abrams or even mechanized warfare in general given their past performance.
Unlike in previous encounters between Russian-built hardware and U.S.-built machines, the Soviet-built machines were generally export models that didn’t feature the most advanced equipment. Moreover, crew training, tactics, maintenance, spare parts availability and logistical support may have been subpar—like Saddam Hussein’s army when it faced off against the U.S. Army in the first Gulf War.
In this case, ISIS’ Abrams would be the export models that were sold to Iraq. While the M1A1 SA has many advanced features, it lacks the heavy depleted uranium armor matrix found on the U.S. Army’s own tanks. Further, the Iraqi Abrams were not equipped with features such as explosive reactive armor that would have helped those vehicles survive in combat against ISIS or other insurgent groups’ anti-tank missiles from various angles. But even then, the Iraqi Army is losing to ISIS not because of its equipment, but because it lacks the discipline, tactics, training and procedures to fight and win.
While ISIS likely has the motivation and discipline to put up a fight, what the group doesn’t have is the logistical train to operate the Abrams. The Abrams is a complex, maintenance intensive machine that requires a steady stream of spare parts and ammunition. Moreover, its 1500hp gas turbine engine also burns fuel at a rapid clip—so a steady supply of JP-8 fuel is a must. At the end of the day, the Abrams is designed to operate as part of a large conventional army—which ISIS is not.
ISIS is not a conventional fighting force—in many ways it’s a hybrid between a conventional army and an insurgency. While the group may use armor captured from Iraqi or Syrian stocks, it’s not going to employ tanks in massed armored formations like the U.S. Army or Russia. ISIS doesn’t have enough tanks or the training to undertake such an endeavor even if they can learn to operate an individual Abrams as a vehicle. Fighting as part of a conventional mechanized force is a lot more complicated than just learning operate a single vehicle—it takes a lot of coordination and training.
Overall, if there was an encounter between the Russian T-90s and group of ISIS operated Abrams, it’s likely that a force of trained Russian soldiers would prevail. The problem for the Russians is probably not going to be ISIS tanks but rather the hordes of ISIS soldiers armed with rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank missiles and explosively formed penetrators that they might face-off against.
Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @DaveMajumdar.
I thought we had an air campaign going on over there. There should not be a SINGLE M1A1 undestroyed.
Obama’s foreign policy from Clinton to Kerry have been disastrous except to ISIL.
The crew with the better training. Now, that said, why is a single tank of ANY sort still functional?
For that matter, why is a single Toyota pickup still functional?
We do have an air campaign.
I recall the code name as: “Dilly, Dally, Dailly”...
Or sumpin like that...
Yes. And related to what you wondered about why they are still functional, does ISIS have the mechanics and technicians to keep their vehicles functional if they're actually confronted with combat?
Armed Toyota pick up trucks can be very dangerous to Russian armor - I don’t know about this T-90 but I do recall Qaddafi’s armored invasion of Chad got wiped out by the use of Toyota’s with anti-tank guns mounted in the truck bed. In the 1980s if I recall?
There was and article out several weeks ago claiming most US aircraft return with bombs still attached...True? False? Who the hell knows. I mean with this “administration,” God forbid we should kill any moos- limbs.
It’s logical that Russians should be our allies against this bunch. Orthodox Russian Christianity has more in common with the secular West than with the muslim hordes in Syria.
My son is an AF pilot. He says the “jarheads” he is stationed with and spends time with, are itching to go to Syria and fight against ISIS. They would go if there were only 500 of them. With open rules of engagement, they could make a huge difference. They wouldn’t mind being shoulder to shoulder with the Russians in this fight.
An A1 tank going through a berm in the start of Desert storm was hit broadside by a Russian tank. The A1 returned fire and destroyed the Russian. The crew was replaced an the tank continued on.
Here is a great short video coparing the M1A2 vs T-90 M version
(Mozart music in the back ground)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTutmau94iI
Obama is not in the business of having our armed forces killing radical rebel Muslim insurgents. He’s probably instituted ROEs that make it impossible to destroy them.
Russia wins, tanks don’t operate themselves.
not the T-90...
Mommies’ little Euro-Jihadis have no idea what to do with an Abrahms. God the media is stupid beyond belief!
I think our insurgent-terrorist-occupied-gubmint wants to cancel the A-10 because it is too effective.. too American.. Works too well against Islamists.
Not only that….but the most dangerous thing for an airman is landing a fully bombed up airplane….I guess we can thank the regime for that.
Open ROE? You make me laugh.
Why, it would be sohhhh unfair to the other side.
It would be a massive graveyard and we can’t do that.
Best to tie one arm behind our guys backs and make them busy writing reports with the other....
Think about the possibilities, for enhancing his influence world-wide: While Obama has left us looking impotent against ISIS; the Russians quickly break the back of their offensive capability. (Remember, a few years back, the difference in how the Russians handled the Somali pirates? Who do you think released the videos, and to what purpose?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.