The Gun Counter

Probably something you don't see every day.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-1 ... brams-tank

Iraqi Army personnel bring in one of the M1A1 Abrams the US Army gave them back to a US Army depot for repairs. The tank has a Russian machine gun and Iranian ammo.

That pretty much sums up us.gov foreign policy in the Middle East.

So? I'm not just being flippant, here. I really want to know why people seem to think this is a big deal.

Commie guns and ammo are Bumfuckistan's lingua franca. We don't give M16s to Arabs, we buy them AKs. Same goes for much of the other weapons in their hands. An Abrams topped with a DShK is indicative of absolutely nothing shocking.

Jericho941 wrote:Commie guns and ammo are Bumfuckistan's lingua franca. We don't give M16s to Arabs, we buy them AKs.

Actually, we have been giving the Iraqi & Afghan armies M-16s. Simplifies IDing the bad guys when you can just say, "Shoot the guys carrying AKs!'

Cybrludite wrote: Simplifies IDing the bad guys when you can just say, "Shoot the guys carrying AKs!'

Now you sound like Pawpaw.........

Could have been a battlefield expedient. Historically Americans have not been shy about adapting non-standard, even enemy equipment for in the field modifications.

A bigger question, if it was an expedient, was it because the T/C preferred the Russian gun, or was it because the (American supported) Iraqi logistics sucked so much it was easier to get the the gun and ammo than go through channels.

I don't have a problem with the machine gun, but I'm wondering how the Iraqis were using the tank? The M1A1 is a fairly sophisticated tank, and for precision gunnery takes maintenance. Trained crew maintenance. It's electronics-heavy and the Inshalla school of vehicle maintenance doesn't work very well on that turret. It's easy enough to train American gunners on that tank, but it has a long support tail.

Of course, if you're simply driving up to a building and knocking he supports out from under it, that doesn't require a great deal of precision.

PawPaw wrote:I don't have a problem with the machine gun, but I'm wondering how the Iraqis were using the tank? The M1A1 is a fairly sophisticated tank, and for precision gunnery takes maintenance. Trained crew maintenance. It's electronics-heavy ...

You might be thinking of the M1A2 with the EL screen electronics.

The M1A1s were coming in as I was going out, so beyond checking out the shiny new 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore, I didn't get much time in one.

However the FCS was the same as the M1 Abrams, which was essentially the same as the M60A1.

I think the thermal sight was the same as well. I remember we didn't have to crank up the drive to charge batteries, but they solved that with a pony engine on the M1A1, rather than any electronics upgrade.

Yes, it needs maintenance, but not much more than a M60A1 or T72. You or I could climb in an M1A1 and run one with a 2 hour refresher and a glance through the manuals.

It's not in the same class as the Leopard 2A5 or Abrams M1A2 where I would be totally lost. Those are "glass cockpit" tanks.

Keep in mind too, that the Iraqis are almost certainly getting "monkey model" Abrams, and not the stuff we use.

Also, I'd be willing to bet good money that they're not the ones doing the maintenance, but rather like everything else in the middle east, it's probably subcontracted out to a western firm.