You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Tanks come out of mothballs to strengthen Iraqi firepower
2004-12-03
THE first Iraqi tanks will be deployed on the streets ahead of the January 30 elections, senior US and British military officials said. The continuing toll of guerrilla attacks persuaded the coalition and interim Government to fast-track plans to equip the country's embattled security forces with heavy armour, The Times has learnt. Less than two years after Saddam's armoured divisions were pulverised by US-led troops, coalition advisers bowed to a request by Iyad Allawi, the Prime Minister, to reinforce his lightly armed military, which is equipped only with light weapons and trucks and buses highly vulnerable to attack by insurgents. Despite fears of the damage possible if tanks fall into the guerrillas' hands, US, Iraqi and British planners have created from scratch the new 1st Mechanised Brigade, equipped with veteran Soviet-era T-55 battle tanks and MTLB armoured vehicles.
A T-55 is plenty heavy enough to worry a jihadi.
Four T-55s mothballed by the old Iraqi Army have already been refurbished and transported on low loaders from the old army base in al-Muqdadiyah north of Baghdad to the training base at Taji. Commanders say they are ahead of schedule to have ten of the Russian, Chinese and East European-manufactured battle tanks deployed against insurgents — perhaps as early as Christmas — with 950 men and 44 armoured vehicles. Other elements such as the artillery battalion, likely to have 155mm howitzers, will be added later. Iraqi planners hope the full 3,000-man brigade comprising one tank, one artillery and two mechanised battalions, an engineering and reconnaissance company, air defence, communications and logistics units will be ready by the middle of next year. The tanks will be manned by experienced crews from the old Iraqi army, supervised by coalition "advisory support teams" that will train, mentor and accompany them on missions. Colonel Jani Marok, a Royal Marine serving as Chief of Plans in the development of the Iraqi Security Forces, said they would probably be deployed to guard key installations such as power stations, government facilities and "maybe in places such as Fallujah."

The T-55 was first designed in the 1950s but commanders say the Iraqi models have seen little use and are in good condition. They have a 100mm rifle bore main gun and night fighting capability. US Army Colonel David Styles said: "We drove them through Baqubah on transporters and you should have seen the looks on the faces of the Iraqi people. At first they thought, 'Oh just another American convoy', but then they saw that they were T-55s and noticed the Iraqi markings and there were a lot of cheers."
"Ahhh, T55s! What fond memories they bring back! It seems like the old Iraq again, the good old day! Why, I can remember back when the entire 42nd Division ran over Uncle Mahmoud..."
Posted by:Steve White

#22  Sov block tanks from the late 50's/early 60's? (55 is either the design year or the first production year, I forget which.)

Not a problem for an Abrams troop. Big trouble for unarmored infantry.
Posted by: mojo   2004-12-03 1:43:09 AM  

#21  Sov block tanks from the late 50's/early 60's? (55 is either the design year or the first production year, I forget which.)

Not a problem for an Abrams troop. Big trouble for unarmored infantry.
Posted by: mojo   2004-12-03 1:43:09 AM  

#20  Sov block tanks from the late 50's/early 60's? (55 is either the design year or the first production year, I forget which.)

Not a problem for an Abrams troop. Big trouble for unarmored infantry.
Posted by: mojo   2004-12-03 1:42:39 AM  

#19  Sov block tanks from the late 50's/early 60's? (55 is either the design year or the first production year, I forget which.)

Not a problem for an Abrams troop. Big trouble for unarmored infantry.
Posted by: mojo   2004-12-03 1:42:39 AM  

#18  Chechen fighters made mincemeat out of the Soviet tank brigade that went into Grozny. I'm not sure that Iraqi terrorists wouldn't do the same to an Iraqi unit. But Iraqi troops have to learn how to deal with this by themselves eventually, and the T-55 is a relatively inexpensive platform in which to get their first lessons.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-12-03 3:28:31 PM  

#17  Ken Pollack's Arabs at War has an excellent section on the "Toyota War". Short version is: Arab armies suck enough to negate the benefit of armor, once you give the otherside a reasonable anti-tank weapon like the French Milan.

I'm not too enthusiastic about the idea of somebody using T-55s in an anti-insurgency role. Even modern tanks or IFVs like the Abrams or the Bradley aren't suited to convoy and patrol in Iraqi theatre conditions. South African armored cars - seriously. The South Africans would make a mint, and from what I've read, they're brilliant counterinsurgency platforms - not nearly as expensive as Strykers, but good enough for government work.

Re-engineered T-55s would be useful mostly for show, to frighten off the Iranians. I would guess that this is the point - a show-unit for display purposes.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2004-12-03 3:03:51 PM  

#16  phil_b

I know, I know but you forget that the tanks were manned by Lybian tankers not NATO or Israeli tankers. I remember when reading the actions reports that ist was evident that the Lybian crews panicked and didn't supoort one another. With each tank caring only about itself it was easy for the nimble Toyotas to run circles around the tanks at a range too short for the tanks engaging them.
Posted by: JFM   2004-12-03 2:35:32 PM  

#15  Israel did indeed re-engine and otherwise modify a large number of captured T-54s and 55s after the 67 war, under the designation TI-67. Mods included a new powerpack (reportedly a Detroit 12V-71T), the 105mm NATO gun, appropriate fire-control, and air conditioning. These were used with some success against their original owners during the 73 war.
They were reportedly unpopular in Israeli service because of the very cramped interior. Israel has also used the T-55 or T-62 chassis for a heavy APC, but I don't have info on this.
There are many, many other upgrades for these tanks, including a similar one (105mm gun, etc.) done in Egypt.
Add-on spaced armor will mitigate the RPG threat to a great extent, though the vehicle is still vulnerable in close combat. The most appropriate use would be direct-fire support.
The 100mm does have a useful HE round for these operations.
The psychological impact should not be under-estimated; on the jihadis, friendly troops, and Iraqi civilians alike. Tanks are well thought of in that part of the world. This contrasts sharply with the western pop-culture/MSM meme that tanks are brutish dinosaurs and easy targets for a single rebel-hero fighter with a hand-held weapon. This meme, incidentally, dates back almost to the invention of tanks in WW1, when journalists first discovered that the monsters were not in fact completely invulnerable. For once, the masses of the Arab world have it right, while western MSM conformists are buying into a potentially fatal strawman by under-estimating the power of armor.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2004-12-03 2:25:44 PM  

#14  Compared to white Toyotas that these troops are climbing in and out of, isn't even the T-55 and 62s a better alternative? In the Chadian civil war white Toyotas comprehensively defeated a large force of Libyan T-55/62s. Libyan casualties were in the thousands.
Posted by: phil_b   2004-12-03 2:24:26 PM  

#13  TG: Moreover, if reactive armour is added to a T-55, it becomes an acceptable urban zone tank.

Reactive armor and supporting infantry don't mix. When the tank gets hit, the armor blows up, splattering the surrounding infantry with shrapnel.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-12-03 2:18:25 PM  

#12  Not that the T-55 is the greatest tank in the world, but an RPG can even defeat an Abrams if the warhead hit the right spot. Moreover, if reactive armour is added to a T-55, it becomes an acceptable urban zone tank. And the Czechs and Slovaks have done some ammo development and have a HESH round for the 100MM. HESH is REALLY bad news if you are on the other side of the wall that it hits.
And besides which, steel is still better protection that cloth or even body armour.
One last thing, if the Iraqis are touchy about Israeli modifications, the South Africans, the Indians, or the Turks can do them {Turkey has the Israeli mods from their technology agreements}.
Posted by: Thomoting Grinenter7353   2004-12-03 2:16:18 PM  

#11  CA: Folks, you're missin' the point here. Compared to white Toyotas that these troops are climbing in and out of, isn't even the T-55 and 62s a better alternative?

I think the firepower element is primary and protection element is secondary. Tanks are too maintenance-intensive to be used for routine convoy operations. (Russian tanks especially are reputed to have lousy engines). These T-55's are likely to be used very selectively and mainly for fire support.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-12-03 2:12:26 PM  

#10  Folks, you're missin' the point here. Compared to white Toyotas that these troops are climbing in and out of, isn't even the T-55 and 62s a better alternative?
Posted by: Capt America   2004-12-03 2:06:11 PM  

#9  A lot of these jihadis have been trained in Soviet style operations which mean the T-55 is most likely nice direct fire support for infantry operations. But the tank is thin skinned and its 100mm gun was originally designed as an anti-tank gun, not a general fire support weapon.

I think I read somewhere that the left's pink cardboard tank is barely a match for the T-55.
Posted by: badanov   2004-12-03 2:01:26 PM  

#8  Mike: Might as well get some use out of 'em. Against any other MBT, the T-55 is a deathtrap; but against semi-trained urban goon squads with AK's and the odd RPG, it's a hulking steel monster of death.

RPG's can defeat T-55 armor. However, I think T-55's can be useful for direct fire support during operations, when proximity to the enemy is such that tube artillery is hazardous.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-12-03 1:46:32 PM  

#7  Shipman: certain hmmmm *cough* 3rd parties *cough* have been known to re-engine T-55 and 62s.

Israel?
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2004-12-03 1:44:12 PM  

#6  Might as well get some use out of 'em. Against any other MBT, the T-55 is a deathtrap; but against semi-trained urban goon squads with AK's and the odd RPG, it's a hulking steel monster of death.
Posted by: Mike   2004-12-03 1:36:51 PM  

#5  certain hmmmm *cough* 3rd parties *cough* have been known to re-engine T-55 and 62s.
Posted by: Shipman   2004-12-03 11:26:27 AM  

#4  I suspect the planners have accounted for this. There's probably plenty of spares/cannablisable units around Iraq. If not, there's lots of Eastern European countries who can either supply parts or the upgraded engines.
Posted by: Pappy   2004-12-03 11:22:15 AM  

#3  Those tanks are pretty useless for practical purposes. Their engine machining is so poor that their useful life before engine rebuild is measured in hours. I've heard estimates as low as 1000 hours before a rebuild, with another 1000 before the tank is a basket case.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2004-12-03 11:10:01 AM  

#2  Good idea! I cringe when I see the video footage showing these Iraqi soldiers getting around in small trucks. Should paint a bullseye on those vehicles.
Posted by: Capt America   2004-12-03 1:59:45 AM  

#1  Oh, dear. I do hope the Iraqis are better drivers than, e.g. the Egyptians. (Mr. Wife tells stories of his taxi driver going full speed the wrong way down one-way streets with the lights off, "to save the battery.") If yes, there will be a few more buildings with holes in the walls before the men are fully trained.
Posted by: trailing wife   2004-12-03 1:25:03 AM  

00:00