Posted on 06/10/2018 8:00:47 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
With assistance from Russia, one of Iraq’s armored brigades has swapped out its American-made M1 Abrams tanks for new T-90s. The change comes after the United States complained about M1s ending up in the hands of Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias and could be another sign that the Kremlin is looking to lure Iraqi authorities into its sphere of influence.
Iraq’s Ministry of Defense announced the change on its official, Arabic-only website on June 8, 2018. According to a translation of the information by Jane’s 360, the 9th Division’s 35th Brigade took delivery of 39 T-90S tanks. The unit’s remaining Abrams went to the 34th Brigade, another one of the 9th Division’s units, which has operated M1s, as well as older Soviet-era types.
Iraqi officials added that Russian specialists had retrained the 35th Brigade’s officers and crews to operate the new tanks. They did not say whether these individuals were members of Russia’s military, employees of the manufacturer UralVagonZavod (UVZ), or private contractors.
Iraq finalized a contract with UVZ in 2016 for a total of 73 T-90S and SK tanks. The Iraqis began taking the deliveries of the first examples in February 2018.
The T-90S types that Iraq has received are among the most recent iterations of the design, itself an outgrowth of the Soviet-era T-72, and appear to share some features with Russia's newest T-90SM variants. The vehicle remains largely unchanged in terms of its basic configuration and has a modernized version of the 125mm main gun found on the original type.
The new design does have a significantly more powerful engine, giving the vehicle a top speed of nearly 40 miles an hour on roads and a range of approximately 340 miles on a single tank of gas.
ALEKSEY KITAEV VIA WIKIMEDIA
A T-90SM tank, which notably differs from the Iraqi tanks in that it has a remote weapon station on top of the turret, but shares some other features, especially in the configuration of the hull.
The tanks also have a blend of steel and composite armor that offers improved protection over the old T-72, as well as improved fire control systems, night vision optics, and communications equipment. It’s worth noting that Iraq’s past experience with the T-72-series is, at best checkered. Those tanks were notably poor performers during both the first Gulf War in 1991 and the U.S.-led invasion of the country in 2003, but for various reasons.
The T-90SK is a variant for unit commanders, which differs only from the standard type in that it has additional radios and navigation equipment. We don’t know how many S versus SK types are in Iraq’s total order.
Iraq’s variants of the T-90 also feature additional defense systems. These include a system that can detect laser designators and rangefinders, found on a number of modern anti-tank weapons, and alert the crew, giving them at least a chance to either maneuver behind cover or deploy a defensive smoke screen.
There is also an extensive explosive reactive armor (ERA) suite to defend against anti-tank guided missiles and other infantry anti-armor weapons, such rocket-propelled grenades. They also have slat armor screens around the engine compartment at the rear for additional protection against the latter type of threats.
ERA involves blocks of explosives positioned around the vehicle that explode outward on impact, absorbing the blast of an incoming round before it hits the actual hull of the vehicle. Slat armor either pre-detonates the projectile before it can do significant damage or physically stops it from hitting its target.
Neither of these defenses are designed to stop high-speed kinetic penetrators. And in the case of ERA arrays, each individual explosive block can only defeat one threat before it needs replacement and can potentially pose a hazard to any nearby friendly infantry or innocent bystanders. This can be a significant problem during urban operations where accompanying infantry units are essential to protecting heavy armor from getting flanked or falling victim to sudden ambushes.
But regardless of these improvements over older T-72 tanks, the 48-ton T-90s are simply not in the same class as the 70-ton Abrams. As such, the decision to refit the 35th Brigade with T-90s raises questions about whether Iraq sees the larger, more advanced M1s as being more expensive and complex to operate both practically and politically.
US ARMY
One of the Iraqi 9th Division's M1 Abrams west of the city of Mosul in March 2017.
There is no question that the Abrams is more costly to sustain, but in 2018, they’ve also become the source of a complicated dispute with the U.S. government. Since at least 2015, there had been reports that some of the M1s, as well as other American-supplied vehicles and equipment, had found their way, either by quasi-official transfer or unofficial agreements, into the hands of Iraqi militias, such as Kata'ib Hezbollah – not to be confused with the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah – and the Badr Organization.
These Shi’ite Iraqi groups, which receive significant support from Iran, have operated under official sanction as members of the country’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) since 2014. In 2016, PMUs officially became part of Iraq’s armed forces.
The U.S. government apparently only decided to make clear that it did not approve of the Abrams going to the PMUs sometime after October 2017. At that time, PMUs that had acquired Abrams took part in the Iraqi government’s swift and violent campaign to crush a push for independence in Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish Region.
In February 2018, the U.S. military finally acknowledged publicly that the Iranian militias had gotten at least nine M1s, some of which Kurdish forces reportedly immobilized during the fighting in and around the strategic city of Kirkuk. By that time, the Pentagon insisted that the Iraqi Army had already recovered all of the tanks from the PMUs.
“We have discovered incidents where some U.S.-origin equipment, including M1 Abrams tanks, came into the possession of certain PMF groups,” Eric Pahon, a U.S. spokesperson, told Military Times on Feb. 8, 2018, using another term for PMUs. “We continue to stress to the Government of Iraq, as we do to all allies and partners, their obligation to maintain U.S.-origin equipment under the operational control of the designated end-user,” he added, stressing that the United States did not support the Iranian-linked groups.
In a report to Congress it released in May 2018, the Pentagon confirmed all of the M1s were back in the custody of the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In addition, it noted that the U.S. military had begun requiring regular reports about the tanks and their whereabouts and had put unspecified restrictions on maintenance and other support of the vehicles in order to help ensure they didn’t find their way back to the militias.
There is no indication that Russia has put any similar restrictions on who gets the T-90s or how those units employ them. By freeing the 35th Brigade of M1s, the Iraqi government may have effectively made the unit more readily able to pursue its agendas without American interference.
This could be particularly important to the forthcoming Iraqi coalition government, which will almost certainly be led in part by a political bloc with Muqtada Al Sadr at its head. Parties aligned with Sadr’s Alliance Towards Reforms won a plurality of seats in the country’s parliamentary elections in May 2018, but not enough to form a government by themselves.
Sadr, a Shi’ite cleric and long-time Iraqi political figure, led a militia against the American-led occupation of Iraq and continued to be a major power-broker afterward. He has strong ties himself with Iran, but has also sought to develop a more diverse set of allies inside the country and out, including taking a meeting with Saudi Arabia’s powerful Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman.
Even before the election, the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi and his administration had maintained close connections with the regime in Tehran and had begun to signal a willingness to seek partners beyond the United States and its allies. It was Abadi’s government that signed the T-90 deal with Russia.
Under Abadi, Iraq has also purchased Mi-28NE Havoc gunship helicopters, Su-25 Frogfoot ground attack aircraft, Pantsir-S point air defense systems, and is now looking to buy the increasingly popular S-400 long-range surface-to-air missile system. His government has also bought advanced weapons, including light attack jets and armed drones, from China, the Czech Republic, and South Korea, in addition to acquiring more arms from the United States.
Iraqi deals with Russia are only likely to grow if the Kremlin continues to prove more willing than the United States to sell more advanced weapons without significant restrictions to whoever forms the next government in Baghdad. And the Russians will almost certainly be happy to try and present themselves as an alternative to the Americans beyond just military deals at the same time.
As we at The War Zone have noted many times in the past, Russia is eager to expand its influence in the Middle East and has been keen to exploit any potential rifts between the United States and its traditional regional partners. The Kremlin under Russian President Vladimir Putin has made significant efforts to improve and expand ties with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, already.
During the skirmish between authorities in Baghdad and the Kurdish Regional Government in 2017, Russia joined Iran and Turkey in siding with the former. In April 2018, officials from Iraq and Russia, along with representatives from Iran and Syria, met in Baghdad to discuss regional counter-terrorism efforts.
And as time goes on, and if the immediacy of the threat from ISIS or other terrorist groups continues to recede, Iraq’s various political factions may be more inclined to pursue their agendas in general. These, in turn, may find themselves increasingly at odds with the interests of the United States and further push the two countries apart, presenting more opportunities for Russia or Iran to fill the gap.
Depending on how and where its T-90s end up employed, the 35th Brigade may become one of the more visible indicators of just how much Iraq’s allegiances may or may not be shifting.
I hope your son made it back without too many issues. Given the ROE’s they operated under - at Bush’s *and* Obama’s insistence - I’m surprised that the number of GI’s killed wasn’t higher.
Agree.
I think it’s a good idea. Our Abrams are too good for those Iraqi stooges. Russian made junk is easier for them, they’re used to that stuff.
I wonder if the Russkies still store the ammo all around the turret? I’m always amazed when I watch video from Desert Storm seeing those T 55s and T72s go up like Roman Candles.
“U.S. military had begun requiring regular reports about the tanks and their whereabouts and had put unspecified restrictions on maintenance and other support of the vehicles”
That must be so annoying when you have a perfectly good tank to sell to a terrorist.
Yeah, bitchin' shot trap you got there, Ivan:
Nothing like directing incoming rounds right into the turret ring.
Because Russian tanks were so effective during Desert Storm.
Due to cultural disregard for technical skills, Arab militaries tend to do poorly at maintaining and training with sophisticated military weapons and equipment. Despite performance below that of US and West European designs, rough and ready Russian weapons and equipment are therefore often more suited to Arab military thinking and practices. In addition, Arab militaries require large contingents of foreign experts on contract to keep their kit running properly and to train their troops in its use. In choosing Russian tanks, Iraq is also expressing a preference for Russian contractors over US contractors. And it also matters that, unlike US and West European suppliers, Russia is willing and ready to pay illegal commissions and bribes to sell their military gear.
Read the white paper “Why Arabs Lose Wars” (1999). It pretty much explains it. That paper coukd never be published today.
In that era at least, a Muslim college student in the US could readily admit the profound problems of the Muslim world. In his view, the stubborn backwardness of Muslim societies was at odds with the educated strata and its desire for modernization and nationalistic reform. That simple explanation of course barely touches the deeper issues that make Islam such a perverse influence.
Dude, Learn to spell and use proper grammar.
Your typing looks and sounds like a Russian troll.
“My son’s opinion of the 2003 Soviet T-72 tank was, a pile of aluminum junk.”
It also has a lot to do with US restrictions on the M1 use, disposition, maintenance, tracking, and deployment.
Thanks,. I disagree. You don’t wait 12 years , run off inspectors that were finding nothing , spend 1 trillion dollars that could have rebuilt America, Lolse 5000 men, incur 50,000 wounded soldiers. Kill 300,000 Iraqis on a false pretext and then dig up a 12 year old rationalization. That does not work. You take care now.
I remember many years ago the Army decided that all tracked vehicles would have depot work performed at Anniston - good idea except for the M-1 gas turbines were getting mauled by well-meaning diesel mechanics....
Such restrictions are meant to protect the M1’s technology, to prevent diversion of M1s to our enemies or unworthy or politically contrary uses, and to make sure that they are kept in good order and not deployed foolishly and frittered away. Even our closest European allies usually have no choice but to accept similar restrictions on virtually all our weapons systems that they buy. They may grumble, but they sign anyway if they cannot negotiate exceptions to the usual terms. The Russians have less stringent requirements because, with few exceptions, their weapons are substantially less capable.
Where is Top with that mermite coffee?
Just FYI, an Abrams costs about 10X to run and maintain over what a T-90 does. Parts for an Abrams only come from one country, who left the Iraqis hanging with their arse in the breeze for 8 years courtesy of Obama; T-90s or parts are made by at least three countries in the world that I can think of off the top of my head and no matter who gets pissed off at Iraq they will still be able to get parts for them.
The Abrams is a very maintenance intensive tank and it’s actually too heavy for many bridges in that part of the world. The T-90 is better suited for them and should we elect another Obama they won’t have to beg for parts. One example - the Abrams is powered by a very expensive, very complex jet turbine system that requires highly trained techs and lots of special tools to service and overhaul. The T-90 uses a V-12 diesel not unrelated to that found in Russian heavy trucks. Any jackleg mechanic that services heavy trucks can fix a T-90.
It’s ERA. It deflects penetrator rounds down thru the hull. A TOW detonating outside turret would probably still blow the turret off.
And 40 mph is slow for a MBT. The Abrams will do >70 on hard top.
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.