Iraq to buy 2000 T-72 tanks

[Creeping Incrementalism]

2k of T72's is a fair number, but not insanely high.  Figure half will be "in operations" at any given time.  Unless you domestically manufacture all the parts necessary for repair and maintenance of your tanks, you want plenty of spares.

I don't consider myself particularly knoweldgable on this, but I doubt that Iraq is buying more than it needs in order to cannibalize parts.

Either way, it sounds like an excessive amount to me.  Isn't that enough to equip about 60 battalions, based on Soviet TOE?  Isn't that more than Saddam had total in his Republican Guard divisions before the Gulf War?  I would guess that is several times more than Iraq needs for defensive purposes, considering it should be concentrating on reliable and profession infantry to maintain order in the streets.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

How many tanks does Iran have?  Or, more importantly, how many tanks would it take to defeat a major Iranian attack?

[just Warren]

Wouldn't anti-tank systems be better? Have a hard time invading anyone with those.

[roo_ster]

Wouldn't anti-tank systems be better? Have a hard time invading anyone with those.

Best anti-tank weapon is usually another tank.

[buzz_knox]

Wouldn't anti-tank systems be better? Have a hard time invading anyone with those.

A combined arms force (mechanized infantry, artillery and tanks) can wipe the floor with any units using only anti-tank systems.  That was proven in WWII and in the Yom Kippur War. 

[RevDisk]

Best anti-tank weapon is usually another tank.

Hrm.  Na.  The best anti-tank weapon is an A10.

[agricola]

Hrm.  Na.  The best anti-tank weapon is an A10.

Thats not what Guderian said though.

 

[buzz_knox]

Hrm.  Na.  The best anti-tank weapon is an A10.

Unfortunately, the Air Force doesn't think so.  It only keeps that A-10 in service because the Army will demand that the Key West Agreement be amended so that the Army can get it if the Air Force ditches the plane.

The Air Force doesn't consider the A-10 survivable enough given the modern battlefield and prefers the F-16 for the ground attack role.

[Cromlech]

Survivable against SAMs? Or against AA or small arms fire? As far as toughness goes, the A-10 has got to be the toughest. I suppose faster and more advanced planes will fare better against SAMs.

[Gewehr98]

Unfortunately, the Air Force doesn't think so.  It only keeps that A-10 in service because the Army will demand that the Key West Agreement be amended so that the Army can get it if the Air Force ditches the plane.

The Air Force doesn't consider the A-10 survivable enough given the modern battlefield and prefers the F-16 for the ground attack role.

Well, that's just plain interesting. 

Talking to my buddies in Air Staff not too long ago, they're pleased that the A-10 has undergone upgrades to the A-10C configuration, and it will continue in the anti-armor/close air support role for many years to come.  The F-16 just couldn't do things as well as the Warthog, so the venerable Hog is scheduled to stay in service until 2028.

LennyJoe could probably provide additional inputs about the A-10's "lack of survivability", and how the F-16 is going to replace it. 

[RevDisk]

Unfortunately, the Air Force doesn't think so.  It only keeps that A-10 in service because the Army will demand that the Key West Agreement be amended so that the Army can get it if the Air Force ditches the plane.

The Air Force doesn't consider the A-10 survivable enough given the modern battlefield and prefers the F-16 for the ground attack role.

If the USAF pulled the Hog for any of their new shiney toys which absolutely suck at CAS...  Well, let's just say that they wouldn't have to worry about the survivability of any of their airplanes.   The A10 and the AC-130 are the only CAS options that I would ever trust.