M1 Abrams Tanks for Iraq

Iraqi M1A1
(click to view full)

Tanks often decide battles, unless aircraft are around. Iraq had a lot of unfriendly visits by the USAF from 1991-2003, which left the largest armored force in the region looking to rebuild their armored corps from zero. Early donations and salvage fielded a small set of Soviet-era weapons, but after tangling with the Americans one too many times, the Iraqis knew what they really wanted. They wanted what their opponents had.

On July 31/08, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced Iraq’s formal request to buy M1 Abrams tanks, well as the associated vehicles, equipment and services required to keep them in the field. The tanks will apparently be new-build, not transferred from American stocks. With this purchase, Iraq became the 4th M1 Abrams operator in the region, joining Egypt (M1A1s), Kuwait (M1A2), and Saudi Arabia (M1A2-SEP variant). A similar December 2008 request was confirmed to be additive, and deliveries have now finished on the initial order. So, what’s next?

The Tanks

M1 Abrams TUSK
(click to view full)

“M1A1-SA” (Situational Awareness) tanks are a modification set designed by the US Army, in response to their experiences in Iraq. It is potentially complementary to the M1 TUSK (Tank Urban Survivability Kit) upgrade, which adds a set of advanced sensors and machine gun operated from inside the vehicle, a loader’s armored gun shield, explosive-reactive armor tiles, a remote thermal sight, and an improved power distribution box, as well as other key modifications. See the accompanying article’s graphic for more.

The Iraqis have evidently responded to these tanks’ success on the ground, and Iraq’s tanks appear to borrow a number of these characteristics. Modifications for the American set include:

• 2nd-generation FLIR (Forward-Looking Infrared) sights, which make a difference on the battlefield. General Dynamics releases specifically mention this feature for Iraq’s tanks.

• Far Target Locate.

• An eye-safe laser rangefinder.

• Driver’s vision enhancements. These may include BAE System’s DVRC rear-view thermal camera. General Dynamics releases specifically mention this feature for Iraq’s tanks.

• A power distribution box (note all of the associated electronics in these modifications).

• A rear slave receptacle. An auxiliary power (slave) receptacle is used to start a vehicle when its batteries are unable to supply starting current. A D-N-I.NET article had a couple of interesting points from the field re: the slave receptacle’s design and positioning, and indeed the M1 upgrade initiatives generally.

• A tank-infantry phone that is mounted on the outside of the tank, and can be picked up by accompanying infantry. This modification has been used on tanks for decades, but was left out of the M1. It improves coordination, without forcing the tank crew to come out and expose themselves to enemy fire. This had been a frequent request from infantry troops in Iraq, whose urban situations make this feature especially useful; it is featured on both M1A1-SA and M1 TUSK tanks.

One addition specifically mentioned for Iraqi M1s is turbine engines developed through the US Army’s TIGER (Total Integrated Engine Revitalization) program, along with pulse-jet filter cleaning systems added to improve performance in Iraq’s dust and grit.

There are also 2 enhancements that are normal on US Army tanks, but may not feature on Iraqi vehicles:

• Blue Force Tracking (BFT)/Force Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2), which shows the positions of friendly forces and identified enemies on a computer screen.

• Explosive Reactive Armor tiles, which protect against incoming anti-tank missiles, rockets, and shells. The USA uses a set developed by a partnership between General Dynamics and Israel’s RAFAEL. Other manufacturers exist for this concept, but any tile set sold will have to be designed to fit the M1 Abrams.

Contracts and Key Events

Once a DSCA request is made, the rule is that Congress has 30 days to pass a blockage of the sale. If they don’t, contracts may be negotiated.

HET Global w. M1
(click to view full)

July 16/14: Support. General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI receives a $65.3 million contract modification to foreign military sales contract for specialized training, contractor logistics support, and base life support for the Iraq M1A1 Abrams Program. Funding and work location will be determined with each order, until Feb. 28, 2015. US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI manages the FMS-class purchase on behalf of their Iraqi client (W56HZV-13-D-0015, PO 0010).

Since the US withdrawal, Iraq is now responsible for security and provisions/ quartering (“base life support”) for all in-country support contractors. That tends to hike costs (q.v. Oct 30/12). Meanwhile, Iraq’s interior threats (q.v. April 2013) have sure metastasized, thanks in part to inept and sectarian governance from Prime Minister Maliki. The Kurds have taken Kirkuk and effectively seceded, while a very well-organized hard-line Sunni group called ISIS has established The Islamic state across much of Sunni Iraq and notable portions of Syria. Baghdad in effectively encircled in a quasi-siege, which is more or less the strategy that Al-Qaeda couldn’t succeed with when fighting an opponent of America’s caliber. Against a more lightly equipped opponent with massive ethnic divisions and corruptions within the ranks, even one bolstered by Iranian Revolutionary Guard battalions, who knows? Mr. Sykes and Mr. Picot appear to be absent, and could not be reached for comment.

April 2013: SIGIR report. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction’s quarterly report [PDF] discusses Iraq’s M1 tank plans. Lieutenant General Robert Caslen, Chief of the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I), says that Iraq is working on a Foreign Military Sale case for another 175 M1 Abrams tanks, worth around $1.2 billion. In terms of the bigger picture:

“They have one division that deals with external threats. The other divisions are all employed against interior threats. There are not a lot of external threats right now, other than what’s spilling across from Syria. Iraq’s chief objective, thus, is to defeat internal threats, and most of their ground forces are inside cities trying to deal with them. Now, that creates a dilemma for a number of reasons. One is you have central government forces working in provincial government jurisdictions, where they are competing not only with the provincial government but also with another ministry, the Ministry of Interior (MOI), which has jurisdiction over Iraq’s police forces.”

That $1.2 billion DSCA case doesn’t seem to have gone anywhere yet. Meanwhile, DJ Elliott (USN, ret.) has some tentative thoughts about overall force structure:

“140 existing M1A1s plus the deal for 175 fits for 9 tank rgts at 35 each…. It also fits for 7 tank regts at the more traditional 44 tanks each and the Tank Div’s Tank Co. And 250 Bradleys fit for the Armored Div’s 5 Mech Bns, 7 Mech Cos for the tank rgts and the element at Div…. The standard for the US is 14. 3×14+2=44…. I’m back to wondering if the IA 35 tanks per Tank Rgt is just an stage. With plans to add a [platoon] per company as they get the tanks [44 per TR]…. If so, then the M1A1 and M2 new purchases are for 9th Armor Division only.”

March 12/13: Support. General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI receives a $19.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification of an existing contract to continue training services and contractor logistics support services for Iraq until Sept 30/13. Work location will be determined with each order.

One bid was solicited, with one bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-13-D-0015).

March 9/13: Iraq snapshot. D.J. Elliott looks at “Iraqi Security Force Total Mobilization March 2013.” As one might expect, Iraq’s forces are primarily deployed orienting toward Iran, with a forward defense strategy that combines local para-military forces with Iraq’s regular military as backup. Within that structure, its mechanized divisions and especially its M1 tanks function in the role of national strategic reserves.

Iraq is going to miss its 2015 schedule for operational independence, and also its 2020 schedule for strategic independence. This is explained in more detail in “ISF Structure and Development February 2013.” Ground forces observations include:

“The IA is in the process of converting to external defense…. The IA has only 10 Tank Regiments [Battalions] of the 61 needed to fill out the planned 3 Armor and 8 Mechanized Divisions. Discounting the light APCs, the IA has 35 of 71 planned Mechanized Battalions. At Division-level the IA is still missing 50 percent of its planned artillery and Engineers plus their logistics support units. Division Anti-Tank elements are planned but not formed. The IA Corps-level combat support units and augment units to the FP for external defense have only started forming [Artillery, Mortars, Anti-Aircraft, Anti-Tank, etc].”

Iraqi M1s arrive
(click to view full)

Oct 30/12: SIGIR Report. The USA’s Iraq SIGIR, Oct. 2012 report highlights some activities related to Iraq’s purchase and also highlights some important changes for the cost of supporting US Foreign Military Sales. That could cost some American contractors, even as “Iraq’s plans for bolstering its security forces position the country as a major new consumer on the world armaments market.”

With respect to Iraq’s M1 fleet, A $40 million letter of request has already been issued for 120mm ammunition. OSC-I is working on a $200 million Foreign Military Sale case that would supply M1A1 simulators, and on a deal for contractor sustainment and spares support. Speaking of support, those cost calculations are about to change sharply:

“According to OSC-I, once sites are transferred to the GOI, contractor requirements and the costs associated with staffing cases and delivering security assistance equipment will rise because the U.S. government will no longer be bearing life-support and security expenses. 235 For planning purposes, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has estimated that the annual cost per contractor for life support and security will be $250,000…. but DSCA’s flat rate of $250,000 per person per annum (based on current security assistance trainer costs) does not appear to take into account costs outside of the current U.S. government-funded security umbrella. Th ese costs may be materially different when they are managed directly by contractors… and will vary widely based on where in Iraq the services are being executed and the duration of the services being provided. Without a task-specific rate for life support and security, these estimates built into future cases may prove to be artificially low (or, in some instances, possibly too high).

As OSC-I is “normalized” (reducing the U.S. government presence and direct management), navigating uncertain Iraqi business processes and limited infrastructure (such as the absence of bonded freight forwarders) will fall directly to contractors. Planning for these changes (and their possible disruptions to FMS cases) is seen as significant…. In a recent example of this, the GOI’s interpretation of the customs levy waiver on June 30, 2012, led to all inbound FMS shipments being held up and resulted in unplanned storage costs.”

This will be especially challenging, and potentially expensive, in a country where SIGIR describes corruption as pervasive and institutionalized.

Oct 5/12: 6 more tanks. General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI receives a $9.5 million firm-fixed-price contract “for the services necessary to rebuild six M1A1 tanks in support of Foreign Military Sales.” US Army TACOM has confirmed to us that these are for Iraq.

Work will be performed in Lima, OH; Tallahassee, FL; Scranton, PA; Anniston, AL; and Sterling Heights, MI; with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-12-C-0373).

Dec 22/10: Delivery. Another batch of 12 M1A1 Abram arrives at Umm Qasr, and will be transitioned to the Iraqis at the Besmaya Combat Training Center, for eventual assignment to the 9th Mechanized division. Once the tanks are deprocessed, this will total 63 tanks integrated into the Iraqi Army. So far, 65 crews are already trained, and Iraqi crew members are scheduled to receive a new equipment training package in conjunction with the fielding of the tanks. USF-I.

At the same time, 21 Iraqi Army M1A1 Tank Familiarization Course cadre are preparing to begin instructing their own M1A1 program at the Besmaya Combat Training Center, with assistance from United States Forces-Iraq. The 21 members of the IA cadre have been training on M1A1 tanks and the Advanced Gunnery Training System (AGTS), a large-scale simulator. USF-I.

Oct 14/10: Delivery. An M1A1 tank rollout ceremony is held at the Iraqi Defense Ministry headquarters, as the Iraqi Army received 35 of its 140 ordered M1A1 tanks. This marked the formal delivery of the first 3 sets of tanks needed to form the 1st Iraqi M1 Tank Regiment, and construction of appropriate training facilities is underway at Besmay. Each Tank Regiment is to have 35 tanks, and requires 80 vehicle bays:

“The M1A1 fielding and storage site boasts 80 fully-enclosed bays, two wash racks, maintenance bays, training buildings, headquarters buildings, warehouses, guard towers, and a motor pool workshop. “This will provide enough tanks to establish four M1A1 tank battalions of 35 tanks each,” said John Hutchings, ITAM-Army’s M1A1 project officer. “The facilities will, in the long term, become a part of the Combat Training Center at Besmaya,” Hutchings said. “The facilities will be handed over to the BCTC for use by battalion-size units conducting training on the Besmaya Range.”

ISF Order of Battle author DJ Elliott notes that 80 vehicle bays is a fit for the US Combined Arms Battalion (CAB) structure, albeit with 17 tanks per company vice the US standard of 14. He believes that Iraqi tank regiments will have the following:

• 35 tanks (2 companies of 17 each, plus 1 at battalion)
  
• 31 APCs (2 companies of 14 each, plus 3 at battalion)
  
• 6 mortar carriers (1 battery)
  
• 2 command vehicles
  
• 2 armored ambulances
  
• 2-4 repair/recovery vehicles

July 26/10: Trucks & M113s. Oshkosh Corp. in Oshkosh, WI receives an unfinalized $41.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for heavy tank transporter trucks, per Iraq’s DSCA request. The order involves 60 sets of a M1070A0 HET tractor and the Fontaine 635NL trailer, plus ancillary items including 6,240 spare tires, spare parts, non-standard trailer manuals, and IHETS operator training. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, WI, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/11. There’s only 1 HET truck manufacturer, so 1 bid was solicited with 1 bid received by Us Army TACOM in Warren, MI (W56HZV-07-C-0594). See also Oshkosh release.

While the M1070s could certainly be used for Iraq’s M1 tanks, the Iraqi Army is also getting a big allotment of used US Army equipment through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process for Excess Defense Articles (EDA). This equipment includes:

• 1026 – M113 family of Vehicles tracked APC/command/mortar vehicles
  
• 120 – M198 towed 155mm howitzers
  
• 21 – M88A1 heavy armored recovery vehicles
  
• 60 – M1070s heavy equipment transporter trucks
  
• 24 – M109A5 self propelled 155mm howitzers
  
• 30 – Fuel tankers
  
• Equipment for a strategic bridge company.

In the end, inquiries determined that the 60 M1070 HETs mentioned here are part of this EDA set, but they will be new-build, not second-hand/EDA.

US M1A1s, Tal Afar
(click to view full)

Dec 22/09: General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, MI received a $150.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for the “definization of material contract” and acquisition of 140 M1A1-SA Abrams tanks for Foreign Military Sales program customer Iraq. General Dynamics will perform the work in Lima, OH (70%), Scranton, PA (14%), Anniston, AL (10%), and Tallahassee, FL (6%), with an estimated completion date of May 2011. The US Army Tank and Automotive Command, Contracting Command in Warren, MI manages the contract (W56HZV-06-G-0006).

In its release, GDLS states that the contracts for these 140 tanks are expected to total $198 million.

Dec 8/09: Lead-in. General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. in Sterling Heights, MI received a $14.3 million cost-no-fee contract for material for the Iraq program to purchase 140 M1A1 Abrams vehicles. Work is to be performed at Lima, OH (70%); Scranton, PA (14%); Anniston, AL (10%); and Tallahassee, FL (6%), with an estimated completion date of May 31/11. One bid was solicited and one bid received by the U.S. Army Tank and Automotive Command, Contracting Command in Warren, MI (W56HZV-06-C-0006).

General Dynamics has confirmed to DID that despite Iraq’s budgetary difficulties, this is a long-lead materials order that corresponds to the 2nd DSCA request for another 140 tanks, made in Dec 10/08. See also GDLS release.

Nov 29/09: Training. MNF-I announces that the M1A1 Tank Familiarization Course at Besmaya has graduated its 5th Class. Another 44 tank crewmen from the 9th Division graduated from the course, which took place from Sept 30/09 – Nov 18/09. The training “heavily emphasized hands-on performance over lecture type instruction.” Specialized training consisted of individual crew station training, day and night tank driving, simulation training on the advanced gunnery training simulator, crew served weapons training, and day and night live-fire gunnery training.

Concurrently, 4 maintenance soldiers trained collectively for 97 hours on crew station training, track maintenance, and drivers training on the M1A1 tank and the M88 tank recovery vehicle.

Oct 26/09: DJ Elliott, who maintains the open source Iraqi Order of Battle, discusses M1 related developments:

“The 36th Armored Brigade of 9th Armored Division is the first to upgrade to M1A1 tanks. The new 5-36/9 Armored Battalion received its third company of M1A1s in August 2009. This replaces the Basrah deployed T55 tank equipped 1-36/9 Armored Battalion. The 1-36/9 will re-designate and become a permanent part of 14th Division instead of a temporary attachment.

By the end of 2009, three more companies of M1A1 tanks will be fielded, filling out a new M1A1 equipped armored battalion. Also 70 NATO donated T72s will arrive, providing tanks for two more T72 equipped armored battalions. To provide the mechanized companies for those new M1A1 and T72 battalions, the BMP1 equipped 2-36/9 “Tank” Battalion will trade three of its four BMP1 companies for M1A1s.

These trades in the 9th Armored Division minimizes the impact of the upgrade and transfers to the 36th Armored Brigade by reconfiguring it to two M1A1/BMP1 equipped armored battalions and an M113 equipped mechanized reconnaissance battalion.”

March 11/09: Lead-in. General Dynamics Land Systems announces a contract worth $33 million to purchase long-lead materials for 140 Iraqi M1A1 SA (Situational Awareness) tanks. The SA enhancements to the M1A1 for Iraq include second generation FLIR thermal sights, Tank Urban Survivability (TUSK) enhancements and a driver’s vision-enhancing thermal viewer. The tanks will also be equipped with the TIGER engine, the Pulse Jet System, and embedded diagnostics.

Jan 23/08: Training. MNF-Iraq announces that training continues at Besmaya Range Complex, using a combination of tanks and simulators. Mr. Mark Bangsboll, JHAATT M1A1 Project Officer/Advisor:

“Currently, the first four American tanks are at Besmaya Range Complex, with another 18 to be delivered within the next month. The 22 tanks will be used to train 11 Iraqi tank crews in each of thirteen future 45-day rotations. Iraq has purchased 140 M1A1 Abrams tanks, scheduled for delivery in August 2010.”

U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Salazar, commander, Joint Headquarters Army Advisory Training Team, Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq:

“We currently have 30 Iraqis in the M1A1 Train-the-Trainer course for the first phase of the process. The second phase will involve these new instructors training the new crews.”

Dec 21/08: Training. The Iraqi Army Armor School in Taji, Iraq hosts an M1A1 tank orientation for the first group of 28 Iraqi Army M1A1 tank crewmen, selected from the cadre of current Iraqi Army Armor School instructors and Iraqi Army 9th Mechanized Infantry Division.

They will continue their orientation through Jan 2/09, then selectees will then participate in a 3 month train-the-trainer course with U.S. Army instructors at the Combat Training Center. Once their training is complete, the graduates will serve as instructors for the remaining Iraqi Army crews. The MNF-Iraq release says that the first set of 140 tanks are expected to arrive in fall 2010.

Additional Readings

Thanks to DID subscriber DJ Elliott (USN, ret.) for his assistance with this article.

• The Armor Site – M1A1/2 Abrams. The best online resource, anywhere.

• DID – No Tanks: Iraq’s “Etcetera” American Armor. The M1070 trucks, M113 APCs etc., M109 SPHs, etc. Tanks alone do not create an armored force, it takes more.

• DID – Iraq: Weapons – and Challenges – In the Pipeline

• The Long War Journal (Aug 4/08) – Iraqi Security Forces Order of Battle: August 2008 Update . Overall analysis of Iraq’s recent purchases, and their likely destinations.

• StrategyPage (Aug 3/08) – Iraq Getting M-1A1 Tanks. Adds that there have been tensions between Iraq and Saudi Arabia as well, including threats to intervene in Iraq. Tanks would be the last form any such intervention would take, however; their inability to sustain a supporting logistics effort would defeat any armored incursion all by itself.

Appendix A: Abrams for Iraq – Employment and Implications, 2008

T-55 ‘Fixer-Upper’
…fire sale price!
(click to view full)

The DSCA adds that:

“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.”

While details of the M1A1M have yet to be released, it is likely to use the M1A1-SA variant as a base. Developed for use in Iraq, the M1A1-SA configuration adds a number of enhancements for use in cities and other built-up areas, but doesn’t include the remotely-operated machine gun, reactive armor from General Dynamics and Israel’s RAFAEL, et. al. that are found in full M1 TUSK (Tank Urban Survival Kit) variants.

Other Arab armies in the region, whose recommendations reportedly influenced Iraq’s choice, operate either M1A1s (Egypt) or advanced M1A2-SEP variants (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia).

The DSCA also says, as it almost always does, that the “proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.” That is true from one point of view, if one factors in the American presence in Iraq. If the Americans are removed from the equation, however, this purchase crosses a rubicon.

Past Iraqi defense purchases, including its recent LAV/M1117 and helicopter buys, have all been focused on building forces whose primary focus was on enforcing internal law and order. LAVs can certainly be used in an offensive context, or the US Marines could not depend on them as they do. On the other hand, there are a number of opponents and situations that a USMC commander will not confront with LAVs.

USMC M1A1 settles a
firefight in Fallujah
(click to view full)

American M1 tanks have proven effective in counterinsurgency fights, where their outstanding defenses and the precision fire of their 120mm cannon offer a vital hammer against enemy strongpoints.

What’s new, and different, is that they would also give Iraq a capability it has lacked – the ability to enforce its territorial integrity against incursions from its neighbors.

Iraq’s 9th Division in Taji has done an excellent job with its refurbished T-72 tanks, aged T-55s, BMP-1 tracked APCs, and MT-LB wheeled APCs. Nevertheless, its equipment provides no significant edge over neighboring states, and is not fielded in sufficient numbers to provide real deterrence. 140 Abrams tanks and 392 LAVs would equip only 2-4 mechanized brigades, or about 1/2 to 1 division. That certainly isn’t an invasion force for anything. In a defensive role, however, they would present very formidable mobile opposition against even numerically superior foes. That is exactly what they were designed to do for the USMC in Norway and other areas on Europe’s Cold War front lines. In addition, the Abrams’ history of battlefield performance against enemy T-72s and other Russian stock would have to give neighbors like Iran and Syria pause, if a North Vietnam-style armored invasion were ever contemplated.

The new tanks may even have some deterrence value vis-a-vis Turkey, which has engaged in sporadic incursions into northern Iraq targeting the Marxist Kurdish terrorists of the PKK. Those incursions have had Iraq’s tacit acceptance, however, so long as they do not go too far. Turkey has an democratically accountable government, just as Iraq does, and the 2 countries have a number of interlocking economic and political interests than cannot be dismissed lightly no matter what sentiments rule the day.

Turkey remains Iraq’s main gateway for its rich northern oil fields, and that transit revenue is important to Turkey as well. The Kurdish provinces’ booming economies since 2004 also have other desirable spinoff effects. Nevertheless, Turkey has shown that it will act if it is pushed by the PKK. Iraq, in turn, knows that Turkey’s coordinated armor and air force power is something it cannot defeat. Nor does Iraq’s government have much sympathy for terrorists of any ilk, though its own ability to act against the PKK is tied by the threat of civil war within Iraq. Hence Iraq’s approach of warnings and protests to Turkey, coupled with tacit acceptance. The Kurdish PUK, which is the PKK’s main rival in the Kurdish provinces and plays a significant balancing role within the Iraqi government, has also remained tacitly neutral – so far.

Turkey, in turn, knows that escalating too far risks the prospect of confrontation that spills well beyond Iraq into Turkey’s own Kurdish minorities. Their nightmare scenario would involve united opposition and funding from the Kurdish PUK and PKK parties, Iraq, and possible Arab allies – many of whom attained statehood by throwing off Turkish control. A corollary public campaign in Europe, where the Kurdish cause has been popular in the past, risks even further damage to the Turks.

These balancing ties and risks, plus the potential fallout in the USA from a serious clash, can be expected to be far more effective than 140 Abrams tanks in deterring any larger conflict along Iraq’s northern border.