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.
Why do you think Washington wants to do away with the A-10?
Right. It doesn't matter what kind of tank you have if you're just going to jump out of it and run away.
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.
They probably already SOLD/Gave the plans to Russia and China.. maybe even Iran..
Why do you think Washington wants to do away with the A-10?
Because it’s NOT EXPENSIVE to make?.. keep.. have.. operate or deploy..
It’s TOO effective..
Tanks require an extensive supply and maintenance infrastructure in order to be effective. Not to mention training and leadership.
Good question, those aren’t exactly maintenance free machines. But with all the money ISIS has sloshing around from their oil production network, which we also haven’t bombed, i would guess they can pay top money for technicians.
At church a few months ago, a discussion began after church about what would happen if one of the Abrams on the nearby base went rogue. A couple of tank commanders were called over and they speculated that either several Abrams would go after it or helicopters and/or Warthogs would be called in. One of the commanders said that ‘you sure don’t want a Warthog hunting you.’ The other commander nodded in enthusiastic agreement.
There is a whole lot of “win/win” for Putin in Syria no matter what angle you ascribe to his machinations.
Very true. But still, every ISIS tank should be blown up just on general principle.
If there were a SERIOUS air campaign, no bomb loads would return.
Even if they had to drop them on the Turks, who are engaged only in suppressing and harassing the Kurds, the most effective anti-ISIS military force operating in the area.
Now, if you wanted to take out M1A1 Abrams tanks, being strafed by A-10 Warthogs armed with a General Dynamics GAU-8/A Avenger 30mm cannon, mounted in the nose of the aircraft, is exceptionally effective.
Using the cannon, the A-10 is capable of disabling a main battle tank from a range of over 6,500m. The cannon can fire a range of ammunition, including armour-piercing incendiary rounds (API) weighing up to 0.75kg, or uranium-depleted 0.43kg API rounds.
The magazine can hold 1,350 rounds of ammunition. The pilot can select a firing rate of 2,100 or 4,200 rounds a minute.
One one- or two-second burst is generally enough to open up even the most heavily armored vehicle.
In addition, the A-10 carries a number of different configurations for missiles, including air-to-surface Mavericks, and air-to-air Sidewinders, capable of Mach-2.
Also a wide range of ordnance: for example, the LDGP mk82 226kg, 500lb general-purpose bombs, BLU-1 and BLU-27/B Rockeye II cluster bombs and the cluster bomb unit CBU-52/71.
Why we do not have some 200 of these deployed to the near area to Syria right now, is a continuing puzzle.
I doubt it was a T90 tank. Besides, we have the whole support chain for our tanks. What does ISIS have? Warm bodies to sit (and die) in the tank?
They should have put hidden GPS tracking on all that stuff so we could destroy at will.
Given the reliability record of the Lycoming turbine in the M-1, ISIS better have some top notch aircraft mechanics and access to OEM spare parts or they will be a stationary gun emplacement in short order.
I think much of the success of American Abrams tanks is attributed to their being networked, complete with drone feeds into their intel system, such that everybody can see the battlespace. I doubt ISIS has anything remotely similar. But it would be surprising if the Russians don’t have this technology. It’s been around a long time.
The number of tanks the Russians have in theater so far is just a bare minimum for force protection. They don’t want to be caught in a Blackhawk Down scenario the way Clinton did.
Because the Air Force wants to get rid of the Warthog and replace it with something less effective and more expensive.
ROE’s that result any any enemy injuries are out for sure. What was I thinking?
Go Trump Go. (Not who I’d pick given my druthers, but he understands winning. You can’t “tie” with ISIS.)
Oldplayer
I doubt if any have been destroyed.
This article says the artillery is self-propelled.
I’d say the Russians look pretty serious.
Very true. But, won't the ISIS crews will abandon their stolen tanks and sell THOSE to the Russians/Syrians/Iranians instead?
I also think Iraqi troops left because they joined up for a meal ticket and don’t feel like fighting what is probably very scary and demented guys who want to die in a blazing gunfight over a population they probably hate anyway (Shi’ites are mostly in military and ISIS took over Sunni lands).
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.