Iraq - M1A1 and Upgrade to M1A1M Abrams Tanks

[[R_H]]

Defense Security Cooperation Agency (PDF)

WASHINGTON, July 31, 2008 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of M1A1 and Upgrade to M1A1M Abrams Tanks as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $2.16 billion.

The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of 140 M1A1 Abrams tanks modified and upgraded to the M1A1M Abrams configuration, 8 M88A2 Tank Recovery Vehicles, 64 M1151A1B1 Armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), 92 M1152 Shelter Carriers, 12 M577A2 Command Post Carriers, 16 M548A1 Tracked Logistics Vehicles, 8 M113A2 Armored Ambulances, and 420 AN/VRC-92 Vehicular Receiver Transmitters. Also included are: 35 M1070 Heavy Equipment Transporter (HET) Truck Tractors, 40 M978A2 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) Tankers, 36 M985A2 HEMTT Cargo Trucks, 4 M984A2 HEMTT Wrecker Trucks, 140 M1085A1 5-ton Cargo Trucks, 8 HMMWV Ambulances w/ Shelter, 8 Contact Maintenance Trucks, 32 500 gal Water Tank Trailers, 16 2500 gal Water Tank Trucks, 16 Motorcycles, 80 8 ton Heavy/Medium Trailers, 16 Sedans, 92 M1102 Light Tactical trailers, 92 635NL Semi-Trailers, 4 5,500 lb Rough Terrain Forklifts, 20 M1A1 engines, 20 M1A1 Full Up Power Packs, 3 spare M88A2 engines, 10 M1070 engines, 20 HEMTT engines, 4 M577A2 spare engines, 2 5-ton truck engines, 20 spare HMMWV engines, ammunition, spare and repair parts, maintenance, support equipment, publications and documentation, personnel training and equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $2.16 billion.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country. This proposed sale directly supports the Government of Iraq and serves the interests of the people of Iraq and of the U.S.
This proposed sale would advance Iraq’s effort to develop a strong, well-equipped, trained, and dedicated military force, to establish security and stability throughout Iraq, and to promote the stability and development of a friendly, democratic central government.

The proposed sale and upgrade will allow Iraq to operate and exercise a more lethal and survivable M1A1M tank for the protection of critical infrastructure. Iraq will have no difficulty absorbing these tanks into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractors will be General Dynamics Land Systems Division of Sterling Heights, Michigan; Honeywell International, and General Motors Allison Transmission Division of Detroit, Michigan. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of approximately 8 U.S. Government and 35 contractor representatives to Iraq for up to four years. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.

[Enigma]

.............and watch as it all crumbles to dust within a decade. I saw a T.V. program how the U.S. army strips down and refurbs the Abrams and in no way can the Iraqi government come close to be able to maintain those tanks.

Why would the U.S. government entertain such an idea? AFAIK, there's no way to make new ones and there's no way to manufacture spare parts. When the tank is overhauled, it is stripped down to its basic components, the chassis and turret stripped down to bare metal and separated, the engine is stripped down and refurbed from scratch. By the time they are done with the tank it is practically brand new. Why would the government want to sell off 140 of them? Are they close to producing a replacement MBT?

[Crayz9000]

Hell, if they're going to do anything, they could use the most recent revision of the M60 Patton, upgrade whatever is near failing, and start selling those. I'm sure the National Guard would be glad to be rid of them in exchange for Abrams tanks.

[[R_H]]

Hell, if they're going to do anything, they could use the most recent revision of the M60 Patton, upgrade whatever is near failing, and start selling those. I'm sure the National Guard would be glad to be rid of them in exchange for Abrams tanks.

Didn't the Hungarians donate a bunch of T-72s to Iraq anyways? Something that they're more familiar with (using and maintaining), more could be bought cheaply, they could be upgraded instead of buy a completely new main battle tank and all the logistical challenges doing so would introduce. Besides, Iraq is (or was) capable of manufacturing T-72 from kits in Taji, 12 miles north of Baghdad, which is also home to Camp Tadji.

[Pelranius]

I doubt that they still have the T-72 factory in working order though. Even if they did, a lot of the trained personnel have probably already fled to safer pastures.

[[R_H]]

I doubt that they still have the T-72 factory in working order though. Even if they did, a lot of the trained personnel have probably already fled to safer pastures.

Their National Depot and the 9th Armoured Division are located in Taji, so it's possible the factory can produce on a limited scale. I couldn't find any thing in Taji's Wiki article sources about whether or not the factory is operational or not. Like you, I doubt it. Hungary did donate 77 T-72s, the refurbishment and shipping of which, cost the Iraqi MoD 4.5 million dollars. According to the Wiki article (could find any other sources, even the GlobalSecurity page doesn't have up-to-date numbers) about the Iraqi Security Forces, the Army will be receiving another 120 T-72s out of Slovakian and Slovenian storage, in addition to 306 M-60s from Greece and "Iraq is currently receiving hundreds of secondhand M-60 tanks from U.S. army stockpiles".

[Coyote]

The whole idea is to keep them dependent on US logistics. If they turn on us like the Iranians did, the expensive and maintenance-picky tanks will very quickly devolve to uselessness without US support.

I think someone read "Arabs at War" and took the lessons there to heart. As long as someone else does all the greasy-hands wrench-turning scut work for them, Arab armies perform "marginally adequately". If they have to do the maintenance themselves, they perform like a mob of armed schoolkids. The overall view is that such work is demeaning, and no one truly wants to do it.

It'll be another way to keep bases there... and them on a leash.

[Pelranius]

The Egyptians, Syrians and Iraqis have been competent enough at maintaining their own gear. That particular problem seems to be more endemic to the Saudis and Gulf Arabs (who are the only ones rich enough to pay other people to look after their stuff).

[Lonestar]

The Egyptians, Syrians and Iraqis have been competent enough at maintaining their own gear.

No, they haven't.

Those nations tend to tow tanks and whatnot back to a depot(normally filled with foriegn workers) for very basic maintenance....such as replacing a thrown track.

It's enedemic to the entire Arab world.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Any chance the Iraqis might try selling the tank to foreign nations (without telling the US)?

[MKSheppard]

link

The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of 392 Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs) which include 352 LAV-25, 24 LAV-CC, and 16 LAV-A (Ambulances)

[MKSheppard]

wow, they really are going on a shopping spree

WASHINGTON, July 25, 2008 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of C-130J-30 Aircraft as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $1.5 billion.
The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of 6 C-130J-30 United States Air Force baseline aircraft and equipment, 24 Rolls Royce AE 2100D3 engines, 4 Rolls Royce AE 2100D3 spare engines, 6 AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems, 2 spare AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems, 6 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems, 2 spare AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems. Also included are spare and repair parts, configuration updates, integration studies, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, technical services, personnel training and training equipment, foreign liaison office support, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, construction, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $1.5 billion.

WASHINGTON, July 30, 2008 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of Helicopters and related munitions as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $2.4 billion.
The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of 24 Bell Armed 407 Helicopters or 24 Boeing AH-6 Helicopters, 24 Rolls Royce 250-C-30 Engines, 565 M120 120mm Mortars, 665 M252 81mm Mortars, 200 AGM-114M HELLFIRE missiles, 24 M299 HELLFIRE Guided Missile Launchers, 16 M36 HELLFIRE Training Missiles, 15,000 2.75-inch Rockets, 24 M280 2.75-inch Launchers, 24 XM296 .50 Cal. Machine Guns with 500 Round Ammunition Box, 24 M134 7.62mm Mini-Guns, 81mm ammunition, 120mm ammunition, test measurement and diagnostics equipment, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical data, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $2.4 billion.

WASHINGTON, July 28, 2008 – On July 24, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq of Armored Security Vehicles as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $206 million.

The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of 160 M2 .50 calibur Machine Guns, 160 M1117 Armored Security Vehicles (ASVs), 4 Heavy Duty Recovery Trucks, 160 Harris Vehicular Radio Systems, 144 MK19 MOD3 40mm Grenade Machine Guns with Bracket, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical data, personnel training and training equipment, contractor engineering and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $206 million.

[Pelranius]

The Egyptians, Syrians and Iraqis have been competent enough at maintaining their own gear.

No, they haven't.

Those nations tend to tow tanks and whatnot back to a depot(normally filled with foriegn workers) for very basic maintenance....such as replacing a thrown track.

It's enedemic to the entire Arab world.

Do the Syrians or Egyptians even have the cash for that? I imagine that they would have at least been able to maintain their equipment during combat operations?

[Shroom Man 777]

No one's mentioned how the Iranians are able to keep their F-14 Tomcats in the air? Or are they a special case?

[Ma Deuce]

No one's mentioned how the Iranians are able to keep their F-14 Tomcats in the air?

They haven't really. Only a dozen or so of the original 79 are still flyable, and those numbers dwindle constantly. Those that remain in service only do so by cannibalizing parts from the growing fleet of grounded F-14s.

[Sidewinder]

I'm surprised the US military is willing to sell any M1s, considering the Army and Marine Corps' needs (well, needs defined by officers with working brains, unlike those responsible for FCS), and the fact that any potential replacement is at least a decade from production.

Any chance the Iraqis might try selling the tank to foreign nations (without telling the US)?

There is NO CHANCE of the Iraqis selling a M1 tank without the various US intelligence services finding out about it and tracking down the thing. Tanks are HEAVY, they require special equipment to move them (the aforementioned HETs) because the tracks wear down very quickly on roads, they use fuel faster than a wino can drink (Iraq may have a lot of oil wells, but they don't have a lot of refineries, so it's easier to track where the fuel is going), they need regular maintenance, specially trained maintenance crews to do this, and spare parts for them to avoid becoming 50-ton paperweights...

No one's mentioned how the Iranians are able to keep their F-14 Tomcats in the air? Or are they a special case?

Iranians are PERSIANS, not Arabs.

[Vympel]

No one's mentioned how the Iranians are able to keep their F-14 Tomcats in the air? Or are they a special case?

Iranians aren't Arabs.

EDIT: Damn didn't notice the post above.

[[R_H]]

The Egyptians, Syrians and Iraqis have been competent enough at maintaining their own gear.

No, they haven't.

Those nations tend to tow tanks and whatnot back to a depot(normally filled with foriegn workers) for very basic maintenance....such as replacing a thrown track.

It's enedemic to the entire Arab world.

Do the Syrians or Egyptians even have the cash for that? I imagine that they would have at least been able to maintain their equipment during combat operations?

The Egyptians probably have enough cash for maintenance because of US military aid.

Found an article about the 9th Armoured Division's mechanics

CAMP TAJI, Iraq, Aug. 16, 2005 — To get a starter for a Russian-made T-55AM2 tank, one would just need to … well …

That’s one of the issues the tank soldiers of the Iraqi Army’s 1st Mechanized Brigade, 9th Division, face in order to keep their armored vehicles on the move.

However, with a mix of wit, ingenuity and the helping hands of some U.S. soldiers, these Iraqi troops are finding ways to get the parts they need in order to keep their vehicles in top-notch shape.

The 1st Mechanized Brigade is outfitted with 1960s-era T-55 tanks and armored infantry fighting vehicles known as MTLBs and BMPs. To add a vehicle to their fleet, or keep current vehicles on the go, they must either scrounge for parts from Camp Taji’s vehicle graveyard or gather parts from the camp’s abandoned warehouse district.

“If they need a part for a tank or to rebuild an engine, we’ll go get it,” said U.S. Army Maj. Paul A. Esmahan, team chief, logistics advisory support team, 1st Mechanized Brigade. “Once we get the parts or recover a vehicle, they can have things up and running within a day or two.”

Vehicles the Iraqis restore may have been sitting for years, rusted and covered with graffiti. It’s not a deterrent for the Iraqi soldiers though, because they will paint and refurbish the interior and make sure the tank or personnel carrier is up and running with mission-capable weapons systems, Esmahan said.

“They’ll fix up the inside, the outside, paint it, redo the interior - everything in order to have the vehicle looking good and mission-capable,” Esmahan said.

In order for the Iraqis to get parts or cannibalize from broken vehicles, they need their American partners to lend a hand.

The Iraqis occupy one section of Camp Taji, and the Coalition forces occupy another, which includes the section where scrapped vehicles and parts are housed. The Iraqis cannot come over to that side without American escorts.

“Most of the assistance we provide to the Iraqi maintenance crews is escorting them,” Esmahan said. “They can’t come on to the American-controlled side without American escorts.”

Helping the Iraqis convoy the vehicles and parts back and forth from the two sides is about the extent of the American help with the Iraqi vehicles. When it comes to fixing their vehicles, the Iraqis don’t need a hand, Esmahan said.

“These vehicles aren’t ones our mechanics are even familiar with or know how to work on,” Esmahan said.

The Iraqis don’t need help from their American mechanic counterparts because “they know exactly what they are doing,” Esmahan said.

“They know what all the parts look like, they know how to put the pieces together to make everything work,” Esmahan said. “You will never see them with a manual.”

Experience and knowledge play key roles in keeping the Iraqi armored vehicles running at full speed.

“These soldiers have been trained in schools of engineering and mechanics,” Esmahan said. “Some are officer graduates with prior service and some may have 20 years or more experience. They know exactly how to put together their maintenance program.”

The Iraqis use their tanks and armored personnel carriers to conduct missions in the field day and night, sevens days a week. Therefore, having their vehicles in good working condition is essential explained Esmahan.

“They take a lot of pride in recovering these vehicles,” he said. “They would feel mortified to see one of their vehicles break down outside the wire because they look at it as a reflection of themselves and their ability to accomplish their mission.”

Recovering and making their vehicles ready for day-to-day use is no easy task for the mechanized soldiers. Adequate working conditions are rare. However, the U.S. Army is working to help the Iraqis get all the tools and systems in place to make things more effective for them, said Esmahan.

“Conditions are pretty rough for these guys,” Esmahan said. "They don’t have actual bays to work in, and with the combat arms mission taking precedence, we are still working out the logistics to get them everything they need. We still haven’t purchased all the tools or everything they need to do their job, but it will get there.”

One item not in short supply is paint, and Iraqi 1st Sgt. Bagiv A’bood, a painter with the brigade, uses his skills with a paint gun to turn the rust and graffiti into a fine coat of desert brown.

“It feels good to be able to do this for my country,” A’bood said through the use of an interpreter. “It is good to know I had a hand in helping the soldiers that drive and use these vehicles.”

Not only are the painters, mechanics and drivers of these vehicles proud to keep their army on the roll, Esmahan said he admires the Iraqi work and takes pride in playing just a little part in the Iraqi army’s success.

“They do a very good job. Everybody that’s seen their vehicles are pretty impressed,” Esmahan said. “It’s nice to have a hand in helping them. When they get one of their vehicles to come back to life, everybody gets big smiles on their faces, both the Americans and the Iraqis.”

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

[quote="Sidewinder"]There is NO CHANCE of the Iraqis selling a M1 tank without the various US intelligence services finding out about it and tracking down the thing. Tanks are HEAVY, they require special equipment to move them (the aforementioned HETs) because the tracks wear down very quickly on roads, they use fuel faster than a wino can drink (Iraq may have a lot of oil wells, but they don't have a lot of refineries, so it's easier to track where the fuel is going), they need regular maintenance, specially trained maintenance crews to do this, and spare parts for them to avoid becoming 50-ton paperweights.../quote]

And there's no way they could jury rig something to carry the tank? Really, after all that nonsense the militia pulled and what not, you are giving the intel services too much credit for their abilities.

[[R_H]]

Who would they sell an M1 (or a few) to - Iran? Do the exported M1s even have the DU armor, or is it just conventional steel armour?

[Slacker]

I'm really baffled why they don't aim for a T-72 variant instead-they could get the decent T-84 from the Ukraine, or any of the upgrade kits from Poland, both countries that've helped in the Occupation, would probably love the contract, and would be easier for the Iraqis to maintain. I grant you, it's not quite the same thing as an M-1 variant, but I think the Poles in particular are offering a NATO-compatible kit for the 72. Or they were as of a couple of years ago, when I last looked into this.

[[R_H]]

I'm really baffled why they don't aim for a T-72 variant instead-they could get the decent T-84 from the Ukraine, or any of the upgrade kits from Poland, both countries that've helped in the Occupation, would probably love the contract, and would be easier for the Iraqis to maintain. I grant you, it's not quite the same thing as an M-1 variant, but I think the Poles in particular are offering a NATO-compatible kit for the 72. Or they were as of a couple of years ago, when I last looked into this.

One nitpick, the T-84 is based on the T-80UD, not the T-72. Other than that I agree with you. At the bare minimum, they would need reactive armor kits (against anti-tank missles/rockets) and maybe an underbelly armor upgrade to deal with IEDs, lots of HE main gun ammunition and possible an optics and fire-control upgrade.

[TheMuffinKing]

Who would they sell an M1 (or a few) to - Iran? Do the exported M1s even have the DU armor, or is it just conventional steel armour?

IIRC M1A1's retain their original composite armor, offering less protection. M1A1HC or HA incorporated a separate DU armor package before the 1992 run up of M1A2 production, utilizing armor that incorporates DU from the factory.

Basically, the Iraqi army is getting export models with fewer capabilities than the US abrams tanks.

[Sea Skimmer]

The whole idea is to keep them dependent on US logistics. If they turn on us like the Iranians did, the expensive and maintenance-picky tanks will very quickly devolve to uselessness without US support.

I think someone read "Arabs at War" and took the lessons there to heart. As long as someone else does all the greasy-hands wrench-turning scut work for them, Arab armies perform "marginally adequately". If they have to do the maintenance themselves, they perform like a mob of armed schoolkids. The overall view is that such work is demeaning, and no one truly wants to do it.

It'll be another way to keep bases there... and them on a leash.

Sounds like typical propaganda; meanwhile under Saddam Hussein Iraq was perfectly well able to maintain its advanced weapons, even after a decade of arms embargo. In fact Iraq went far beyond mere maintenance and made major modifications to surface to air missile and radar systems. This included adapting command guided missiles to be autonomous infrared homers, no easy task. Back in 1991 they were was actually working on building AWACS and JSTARs equivalents too, by adapting French air and ground surveillance radars to Il-76 airframes, though neither was ready for action (one or two did take to the air to flee to Iran). Iraq failed against the US because US power was totally overwhelming and the men mostly lacked the will to fight. It also suffered from lack of key pieces of equipment and modern ammo, but massive inserviceability was not an issue.

As for depot level maintenance, its funny anyone would even being that up (and no I don’t believe they are so incompetent that a throw track is depot level for an instant) because the trend in the US military for the last 25 years has been to shove more and more maintenance onto depots or even the freaking civilian manufactures. In the Gulf War and in Iraq today tens of thousands of US civilians are employed to do maintenance work. Some of our 'best' systems like Apache are heavily dependent on that kind of support.

[Sea Skimmer]

IIRC M1A1's retain their original composite armor, offering less protection. M1A1HC or HA incorporated a separate DU armor package before the 1992 run up of M1A2 production, utilizing armor that incorporates DU from the factory.

Basically, the Iraqi army is getting export models with fewer capabilities than the US abrams tanks.

Yeah the basic M1A1 had no DU armor; however total production of those basic models for the US Army was very limited, less then 200 I think before they shifted to M1A1HA, and many have now been turned into M1A2s. The thing is though, the composite and DU armor on the M1 is modular, and the makeup of that special armor has been changed several times. The tanks being supplied to Iraq will probably be rebuilt before being shipped over, and the armor package fitted may in fact contain DU, but it likely just won’t meet the latest US military specifications. Pretty much any model of M1A1+ tank can be fitted with any one of numerous armor packages, so we have no real way of telling how well protected the things will be.

As for buying more T-72s… the T-72 has a certain advantage of familiarity and lower weight, but its flank protection is far inferior to the Abrams and that’s a serious limitation when the main threat is insurgent ambushes. Also, by the time your done upgrading an T-72 to have modern reactive armor and FLIR and a computer ect… the thing isn’t really too cheap anymore, and its not much like the Saddam era T-72s Iraq used to use.