Military Review

For the first time Iraqi Abrams entered Syria

43
Iraqi first spotted in Syria Tanks Abrams, reports Messenger of Mordovia.


For the first time Iraqi Abrams entered Syria


“The last weeks of the fighting in Syria presented a lot of the unexpected. So, quite recently, the militants of the terrorist group IG (banned in the Russian Federation) on the territory of Iraq began to destroy the T-90A tanks sent there by the Syrian command. Today, American-made gas turbine combat vehicles have been spotted in Syria, ”writes material author Lev Romanov.

Iraqi tanks МХNUMXА1М "Abrams" hit the lens in the area of ​​the Syrian city of Abu Kemal.

Despite the fact that the Abrams in Iraq proved to be not too good, however, such assistance would not be superfluous.



It is worth noting that the Iraqi and Syrian military are currently showing good coordination of joint efforts against a common enemy. In some battle formations they fight МХNUMXА1М, Т-1А and Т-90Б, the author notes.

And, if the war against the IG to some extent debunked the combat power and invulnerability of the Abrams, then the opposite for Nizhny Tagil machines happened: “The amazing performance of T-90A in Syria aroused considerable interest among potential buyers. Including the Iraqi army, which decided to acquire Russian cars, ”concludes the publication.
Photos used:
twitter.com/HosseinDalirian
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Shura Perm
    Shura Perm 10 November 2017 12: 38 New
    +9
    the main thing is that they are at the same time, and on which tracks to wind the guts of terrorists, Vladimir T90 or Abrams, this is a secondary matter
    1. siberalt
      siberalt 10 November 2017 12: 41 New
      +9
      If they had "squeezed out" the American coalition from their countries, it would have been much calmer there.
      1. Jedi
        Jedi 10 November 2017 12: 46 New
        12
        hi
        Quote: siberalt
        squeezed out of their countries the American coalition, it would have been much calmer there.

        Eh, dreams ... But the idea itself is good
        1. Partyzan
          Partyzan 10 November 2017 12: 52 New
          +8
          “The stunning effectiveness of the T-90A in Syria has generated considerable interest among potential buyers. Including the Iraqi army, which decided to acquire Russian cars ”
          Max - yes they came to change laughing
          1. Jedi
            Jedi 10 November 2017 12: 56 New
            12
            Quote: Partyzan
            yes they came to change

            Abrases should be taken only at the price of scrap metal by weight. bully
            1. Partyzan
              Partyzan 10 November 2017 12: 59 New
              +8
              Quote: Jedi
              Abrases should be taken only at the price of scrap metal by weight.

              by weight - 1,5 T-90 is obtained if only at the price of scrap metal laughing
              1. Jedi
                Jedi 10 November 2017 13: 02 New
                +6
                Quote: Partyzan
                if only at the price of scrap metal

                The only way. Received money - go ahead to the store for a ride. lol
      2. Lelek
        Lelek 10 November 2017 12: 56 New
        +3
        Quote: siberalt
        Still, by “joint efforts” they would squeeze the American coalition out of their countries


        Hey. Yes, the presence of uninvited guests from across the ocean exacerbates the situation and delays the final defeat of Daesh in Syria. With the Kurds, let's hope Assad manages to get along, but driving out the Anglo-Saxons will be a problem. These will make the face rope and will brazenly sit there. The only way out is to take control of the entire perimeter of the borders and close the sky for everyone except the Russian Aerospace Forces, but whether Assad will have the strength and determination to do this is a question.
      3. _Ugene_
        _Ugene_ 10 November 2017 13: 03 New
        0
        where are they then to take abrams?
    2. den3080
      den3080 10 November 2017 12: 47 New
      +2
      the main thing is to leave do not forget smile
    3. Maz
      Maz 10 November 2017 14: 17 New
      +1
      Yes, it’s comfortable in the ambram, but doesn’t seem to have an automatic loader? Or will it be?
      1. flanker7
        flanker7 10 November 2017 23: 12 New
        +2
        No and never will.
  2. Berber
    Berber 10 November 2017 12: 38 New
    +5
    Throw out the "coalition" from there with all the giblets. Peace and prosperity will come immediately.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 10 November 2017 13: 22 New
      +5
      Quote: BerBer
      Throw out the "coalition" from there with all the giblets. Peace and prosperity will come immediately.

      The coalition intends to proclaim itself to the whole world as the only force that stopped and destroyed ISIS in Syria. It is for this that all this pile of manure has intensified, as the war is coming to an end in Syria.
      1. Berber
        Berber 10 November 2017 15: 38 New
        +3
        Judging by the media, it will be so.
  3. RASKAT
    RASKAT 10 November 2017 12: 39 New
    +2
    For the first time Iraqi Abrams entered Syria
    So let’s drink for the fact that they would never go out there, having remained rusted with burnt skeletons in the vast expanses of the Syrian deserts. drinks
    1. Nasrat
      Nasrat 10 November 2017 12: 42 New
      +3
      Why so with Iraqi tanks? negative

      It is worth noting that the Iraqi and Syrian military currently demonstrate good coordination of joint efforts against a common enemy. In some battle formations, M1A1M, T-90A and T-72B fight,
      1. novel66
        novel66 10 November 2017 12: 45 New
        +4
        so that we buy
    2. zivXP
      zivXP 10 November 2017 12: 44 New
      +2
      How merciless and bloodthirsty you are. So then the Iraqis are allies in them.
      1. RASKAT
        RASKAT 10 November 2017 12: 56 New
        +2
        Yeah, today the Allies (like the Kurds a couple of years ago), and today they squeezed out the floor of Syria and Iraq and held a referendum on independence. What will happen tomorrow?
        The entry of Iraqi troops into Syria at the very last moment (when Isil is almost dead) personally reminds me of the Allied landing in Normandy in 1944. Why didn’t the Iraqis help the Syrians a couple of years ago? On the contrary, through their territory in Iraq, systematic assistance was conducted to militants from Syria. And what did the militants exit from Mosul to Raqqa and Deir es Zor that they had already forgotten? No Iraqis are allies to the Syrians, especially since the country is entirely under the external control of the United States, so only pawns in a strange game. And the farther they stay from Syria, we should be calmer.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 10 November 2017 13: 59 New
          +5
          On the contrary. Syrians are stuck. In the fortified area of ​​blacks. The Kurds could go there first.

          This is a strategic place. And not because there is the penultimate capital of the Blacks (the last will be Damascus - the Yarmouk camp), but because there second route Syria-Iraq, the first (and most convenient Damascus-Baghdad Highway) was tightly blocked by the Americans. If the second were closed by the Kurds and then the Americans would set up a forward base - that’s all. Iraq and Syria would have been cut off from each other.

          To prevent this from happening, Hezbollah, the Shiites and the Iraqi army dealt a blow on their part. Besides the Iraqis, there were also Syrians if that. Including armored vehicles - deployed in the desert.

          So - the project Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Beirut = reanimated.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 10 November 2017 14: 24 New
            +4
            The same "Shiite belt", which was feared by the Saudis, Jordanians and emirates.
            No wonder the new king of Saudi raised a butch with Qatar and Lebanon. Frightened seriously.
        2. zivXP
          zivXP 10 November 2017 14: 24 New
          +1
          RASKAT Today, 12: 56 ↑ New
          Yeah, today the Allies (like the Kurds a couple of years ago), and today they squeezed out the floor of Syria and Iraq and held a referendum on independence. What will happen tomorrow?

          Notice, the Iraqis without asking did not even go a step into Syria. These are neighbors with whom you need to maintain a friendly line.
          And Kurds are fellow citizens of Arabs and other peoples of Syria. They live in Syria. I’m not talking about the seizure of territories - it’s not yet evening.
    3. 79807420129
      79807420129 10 November 2017 12: 45 New
      +8
      Quote: RASKAT
      For the first time Iraqi Abrams entered Syria
      So let’s drink for the fact that they would never go out there, having remained rusted with burnt skeletons in the vast expanses of the Syrian deserts. drinks

      Why burn, let them help smash the barmaley. yes
      1. Partyzan
        Partyzan 10 November 2017 12: 54 New
        +4
        Quote: 79807420129
        Why burn, let them help smash the barmaley.

        let it go, and then for scrap - it's iron lope laughing
  4. PalBor
    PalBor 10 November 2017 12: 48 New
    +4
    Hmm, a pipe dream: Iraqi Abrams and Syrian T-90s, under the command of a Russian general, entered Washington. love
  5. AlexVas44
    AlexVas44 10 November 2017 12: 58 New
    +1
    ... debunked the military power and invulnerability of the Abrams, the exact opposite happened with the Nizhny Tagil machines: “the stunning effectiveness of the T-90A in Syria caused considerable interest among potential buyers. Including the Iraqi army, which decided to acquire Russian cars, ”the publication concludes.

    Long forgotten - an article in VO in 2011. on the effectiveness of the use of T-72 in Syria.
    Against the background of this article, the phrase about Iraq’s decision to acquire Russian cars sounds somehow awkward. They are familiar with the Iraqi tankers for a long time using the T-72 as an example. And there’s no need to talk about the T-90.
    https://topwar.ru/9716-boevoe-primenenie-tanka-t-
    72.html
  6. Ace Tambourine
    Ace Tambourine 10 November 2017 13: 08 New
    +1
    Well ... they waited ... And then everyone was worried that the Abrashka were not participating in the tank biathlon ... You look, and the Merkavas would catch up ...
  7. Aimpoint
    Aimpoint 10 November 2017 13: 15 New
    +2
    Abrams is an excellent fighting vehicle. Fought a lot, often, and you can not argue with that. But Nizhny Tagil machines were baptized for the first time. And to say that the tank that was run-in in many modern conflicts is full G (well, this is insanity). What do they have, that we have the right equipment. M1A1M, although the old modification, but still can fight. And before yelling that the American tank is a dull shit, remember that its latest American modifications currently in service can guaranteed hit the T-series tanks, up to 90. (ps this is not a reason for sracha)
    1. andj61
      andj61 10 November 2017 14: 25 New
      +2
      Quote: Aimpoint
      Abrams is an excellent fighting vehicle. Fought a lot, often, and you can not argue with that.

      With whom and under what circumstances was the war not taken into account?

      5 Combat use
      1. The Gulf War (1991)
      2. Iraq war (2003—2011)
      3. The war in Afghanistan (2001—2014)
      4. Armed conflict in northern Iraq (2014)
      5. The invasion of Yemen (2015)
      In the first and second cases, they were opposed (in the second case, at the first stage) by obsolete Soviet tanks, but did not fight against them. In other cases, the tanks all the more had only infantry resistance and suffered very tangible losses. There are a lot of shortcomings of tanks, but there are advantages. The tank is solid, but its tongue doesn’t turn out excellent. He is very good, in general, for finishing off an enemy that has already been almost destroyed by aviation. hi
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 10 November 2017 14: 41 New
        +2
        Not at all. He is a heavily armored tank destroyer. And in 2003 he coped with this role perfectly. Frontal duel with Iraqi T-72 won dry. With the penetration of Iraqi tanks from the forehead by uranium crowbars almost right through.
        But in urban counterguerrilla operations Abrams failed. Its hull on the sides is very weakly armored, and it was pierced from RPG-7.
        1. Aimpoint
          Aimpoint 10 November 2017 17: 32 New
          +1
          In urban battles, any Western-Soviet (including Russian) tank will be shamefully destroyed. Although all sorts of Contacts, TASKS, somehow facilitate this fate. Countries that have experience in tank battles are well aware of what kind of combat vehicle your army needs. From my point of view, good tanks T-64, T-90, M1A2, Merkava. But all sorts of non-rolled-up Chinese developments, Japanese Type-10, Leopards of the latest modifications do not compare them. A tank for a stand and a tank for a war are relatively different concepts.
  8. Going
    Going 10 November 2017 13: 36 New
    +7
    And, if the war against the IG to some extent debunked the combat power and invulnerability of the Abrams, then the opposite for Nizhny Tagil machines happened: “The amazing performance of T-90A in Syria aroused considerable interest among potential buyers. Including the Iraqi army, which decided to acquire Russian cars, ”concludes the publication.


    Yes, the events in Syria have given great advertising to our weapons.
    1. Sergei75
      Sergei75 10 November 2017 16: 46 New
      +1
      And the Amerian fighters, as well as the Afghans, take Amerian helicopters.
      1. Going
        Going 10 November 2017 16: 59 New
        +8
        You see what’s the matter, weapons are bought from us voluntarily, and the United States voluntarily - by force, they have created a whole system where there is blackmail, where there is compromising evidence, and where it is just by order.
        1. Sergei75
          Sergei75 10 November 2017 21: 08 New
          +2
          But why the hell, in this situation, did they need our MI-17s?
          1. Going
            Going 10 November 2017 21: 25 New
            +6
            Good question, but I don’t know the answer.
  9. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 10 November 2017 14: 00 New
    +1
    Not so long ago, we made extra-emergency deliveries of our attack aircraft to Iraqis. Therefore, as a token of gratitude, they are simply obligated to give our SABT a couple of "Americans."
  10. donavi49
    donavi49 10 November 2017 14: 06 New
    +3
    The importance of this is hard to overestimate.

    There are 2 Syria-Iraq roads. The first most equipped and convenient = Damascus-Baghdad highway. It is blocked by the Americans tightly.

    The second road is long along the Euphrates. The forces of the government army were stuck in the defense of the Blacks more than 50 km from Abu Kemal. The Kurds on their shore on the contrary are advancing without encountering much resistance. There was a real threat to the capture of Abu Kemal by the Kurds - the installation there of an American forward base (like on the Damascus-Baghdad highway) and blocking the road. To prevent this, some government forces march through gray territory (desert) to Iraq, where they, together with the Iraqi government army, Hazbola, and mobilization forces, attacked Abu Kemal from the rear. Taking the city and the strategic highway. .

  11. Livonetc
    Livonetc 10 November 2017 16: 23 New
    +2
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The same "Shiite belt", which was feared by the Saudis, Jordanians and emirates.
    No wonder the new king of Saudi raised a butch with Qatar and Lebanon. Frightened seriously.

    Please highlight in what form there is a bunch of Saudis with Qatar and Lebanon?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 10 November 2017 22: 10 New
      +2
      They demand that they cease all contacts with Iran.
    2. protoss
      protoss 11 November 2017 00: 50 New
      +2
      the Saudis failed the bombardment with Qatar, the blockade did not work, and it was not enough spirit to enter the Qatar with weapons, after the Turks threw the soldiers there. in the end, everything was almost silent.
      another absurdity is now with Lebanon - they forced Prime Minister Hariri to resign, so what? cause a crisis, affect the relations of the government of Lebanon - hezbollah? some kind of ridiculous move. right now, even on Hamas in Palestine began to put pressure in the interests of Israel.
      in short, their prince imagines himself a reformer and geopolitician, deciding the fate of the region. I foresee that soon Saudi would stumble and stumble in the end on the corpse of a prince.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. Sergei75
    Sergei75 10 November 2017 16: 45 New
    +1
    And just like that they won’t leave from there.
    Why is Syria silent about the beginning of the occupation of its territory by American troops, because no one gave permission for the invasion.
    The Americans occupied the most oil-bearing regions of Syria, for which they started this whole fuss, they just won’t leave. The political world has changed, now we need to learn to work in the chaos of artificially created and created, and we are trying to streamline everything.