Entering service with American forces in 1980, the M1 Abrams main battle tank represents the latest in American innovation and battlefield technology. The prolific outline of the tank has become synonymous with American wars in Iraq, from the Gulf War to the present day. The tank, once thought to be nearly invincible, has absolutely begun to show its age and vulnerability to newer, more advanced anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) systems.
XM-1 Abrams
While the Abrams entered service in 1980, it wasn’t until 1991 that it first saw combat. Designed with combat against the Warsaw Pact in mind, the Abrams instead was sent into battle against a decidedly weaker foe, albeit one armed with Soviet tanks such as the T-54/55, T-62, and T-72 (along with Iraq’s own variant of the T-72, the Lion of Babylon tank, which was fielded in very limited numbers).
Operation Desert Storm
The debut of the Abrams went incredibly well for the tank. Despite some setbacks, mostly in terms of the range and fuel economy of the vehicle it performed remarkably. While the majority of Iraqi armored vehicles were destroyed from the air, a fair number were destroyed by ground vehicles, including the Abrams. This can be attributed to a few factors. First, by the time Coalition ground forces rolled into Iraq in 1991, the Iraqi military had been under sustained aerial bombardment for over two weeks. The Iraqi military was in disarray by the time the Coalition arrived on the ground, and thus large battles and major defensive moves were not seen. Furthermore, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ 1990 edition of The Military Balance, Iraq fielded about 5,530 main battle tanks prior to the war. As previously mentioned, these were primarily of Soviet make, but also consisted of some tanks from other countries as well, including China (Type 59/69), the UK (Chieftain Mk.3/5), and the US (M60/M47 Patton). Flight International‘s March 6, 1991 edition listed the number of Iraqi tanks destroyed at 3,008. The real number is difficult to ascertain, but the simple fact is that the ratio of kills to losses heavily favored the Abrams.
Destroyed Iraqi tank, either a T-55 or a Type-69
Many of the Abrams tanks that went into battle during the Gulf War were equipped with depleted uranium armor, which was nearly impenetrable to anything Iraq’s military fielded. On the contrary, American ground forces were more than capable of destroying the tanks Iraq operated. Aside from the main battle tanks deployed, an array of anti-tank vehicles, TOW-equipped M2 Bradleys, and individual/crew-served infantry anti-tank weapons ensured that Iraqi tanks were dispatched rapidly. The so-called “Mother of All Battles”, which had been declared by Saddam Hussein prior to the beginning of the war, never ended up surfacing.
Operation Iraqi Freedom
US Army M1A2 Abrams tanks in Tal Afar, Iraq, in 2005
In the interwar period, the Abrams underwent a number of upgrades and revisions. By the time the invasion of Iraq came about on March 19, 2003, the most advanced version of the Abrams fielded was designated the M1A2SEP1. These tanks featured upgraded armor and electrical systems, a new cooling system, and modernized sensors/sights. However, the majority of tanks deployed in 2003 were of the M1A2 variety, which had been introduced first in 1986. Unfortunately for the US military, this generational difference in vehicles would prove deadly. While no Abrams tanks were reportedly destroyed in action by enemy fire, at least 530 were damaged so heavily that they had to be returned to the US for repairs (during the period 2003 – 2009). This staggering number of damaged vehicles, compared with the number lost during Desert Storm, can be attributed to a number of issues. First, the occupation of Iraq lasted far longer than the Gulf War did. Second, the insurgents in Iraq used massive roadside bombs for their attacks, which often disabled tanks (as opposed to outright destroying them). Finally, the advent of roadside bombs with explosively formed penetrator (EFP) warheads meant that explosives found lying around Iraq (leftovers from the both wars) could be turned into deadly anti-tank weapons.
Iraqi Military Service
The US began exporting the Abrams to the Iraqi army in 2010, finishing the delivery in 2012. The Iraqi Abrams, designated the M1A1M, featured stripped-down armor and lacked certain technologies that were deemed sensitive/possibly dangerous to export (due to the Iranian influence in Iraq). The Iraqi Army ordered 140 tanks, which were assigned to the 9th Armored Division, the only armored division in the Iraqi Army. However, the Iraqi Army often deploys 9th AD assets alongside various other units, with both the 34th and the 36th Armored Brigades being comprised of M1A1Ms.
Iraqi M1A1Ms on parade
When the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS/IS/ISIL, henceforth Daesh) began sweeping through Iraq in 2014, the Iraqi Army was caught largely off-guard. Trained primarily for counter-insurgency tactics and hobbled by corruption and “ghost soldiers”, the Iraqi Army’s resistance around the northern city of Mosul dissipated without much of a fight in the face of the jihadist onslaught. A small number of Abrams tanks were abandoned and captured by Daesh, who found them too technologically advanced/logistically demanding to use for anything other than propaganda value. While some were undoubtedly destroyed by American airstrikes, evidence indicates that most of those few that were captured were destroyed with explosives planted inside them.
Daesh fighter takes a selfie with a burning Iraqi M1A1M in Ramadi in June, 2014
Today the Iraqi Army fields the Abrams alongside leftover tanks from Saddam’s army, along with tanks imported since 2003 from mostly former Soviet-bloc countries. In addition to those, in late 2017 it was reported that the Russian government would begin supplying Iraq with T-90s, making Iraq’s army one of the most advanced (tank-wise) in the world. What remains to be seen is whether or not these new toys and hindsight from the 2014 catastrophe will make a noticeable impact in Iraqi Army competence and abilities to hold territory.
