| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraq/Afghan War News: Iraq to get Abrams Tanks |
| 2009-03-16 |
| Iraqi military forces will take possession of 140 M1A1 Abrams tanks with U.S. military assistance by the summer of 2010, U.S. officials said. Note how this article lauds the "Long War Journal" for it's scoop on this months ago The independent online Long War Journal reported in December that Iraqi troops would train on the M1 at the Besmaya Range Complex east of Baghdad. Iraq's army had under Saddam Hussein used the Russian T-72 tank. |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #13 Are the A1 s the item that is in-country? In that case it does make sense to leave them. What's the latest mark? A3? Well, let's wiki it, shall we? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrams_tank#Variants_and_upgrades |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2009-03-16 16:10 |
| #12 Are the A1 s the item that is in-country? In that case it does make sense to leave them. What's the latest mark? A3? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2009-03-16 13:48 |
| #11 OP is right about airpower being easy tank killers, even the Abrams. I support leaving some there to keep Iran and Syria honest. They have nothing that can face the M-1 and it is cheaper to leave them there. Even if Iraq goes toes up and we see these on the path to Israel, I'm pretty confident in the IAF's ability to knock them out right quick. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-03-16 12:58 |
| #10 And on May 10th, they were saying things like, "Andre, get my brown trousers!" The British had brown trousers as standard ones; :-) |
| Posted by: JFM 2009-03-16 12:46 |
| #9 Well, JFM, if that can make you feel better about it, IIRC, it's the MBT of both egypt & saudi arabia already, courtesy of the US military aid. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2009-03-16 12:06 |
| #8 And on May 10th, they were saying things like, "Andre, get my brown trousers!" |
| Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839 2009-03-16 12:02 |
| #7 Tanks have almost outlived their usefulness You could be right and I am sure it will be right one day. But that is what the French were saying May 9th, 1940. |
| Posted by: JFM 2009-03-16 11:54 |
| #6 Its cheaper to leave them there rather then bring them back and overhaul them. I doubt the maintenance needed to keep them running will be as rigidly followed after we leave. You can bet on cutting that number by 1/3 in the first 2 years of them taking them. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2009-03-16 11:45 |
| #5 Even an Abrams can't stand up to an A-10, and there are dozens of other weapons that can stop one. Tanks have almost outlived their usefulness - even the Abrams. One $50,000 UAV with a Hellfire missile or two can put a stop to them rather abruptly. All this does is give the Iraqis something to scare the pants off the Iranians. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-03-16 11:00 |
| #4 Hopefully they have a remote cutoff switch. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-03-16 10:46 |
| #3 Am I the only one No |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-03-16 09:15 |
| #2 I imagine (140*high probability) accidents. What IED detection ability will they have? |
| Posted by: Captain Spuling5210 2009-03-16 09:13 |
| #1 Am I the only one who thinks you shouldn't give Abrams tanks to Arabs until you have something who could defeat them as easily as an Abrams would defeat a 1942 Sherman? |
| Posted by: JFM 2009-03-16 09:07 |