US military to send tanks to E. Europe for drills

US Army troops equipped with tanks will head to Eastern Europe soon to reassure NATO allies anxious over Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

 

About 600 troops from the 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division are due to deploy in October to Poland and the Baltic states for training exercises with alliance members, replacing paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade, said spokeswoman Lieutenant Colonel Vanessa Hillman.

"It's a three month rotation," Hillman said. The drills are "focused on small unit and leader training."

Unlike the outgoing unit, the troops from the "Iron Horse brigade," based in Fort Hood, Texas, will deploy with M-1 Abrams tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, she said.

US commanders have organized an array of exercises and training efforts on NATO's eastern border to reassure allies dismayed over Russia's support of separatists in Ukraine. Washington also has sent F-16 fighter jets to Poland and joined air policing missions over the Baltic states.

Kiev and Western countries on Thursday accused Russia of directly entering the fighting in eastern Ukraine, saying Moscow had sent combat units into the former Soviet state.

As the UN Security Council prepared to hold an emergency meeting on the crisis, NATO said at least 1,000 Russian troops were on the ground backing pro-Moscow separatists who are fighting Kiev government forces.

NATO leaders have said the alliance must reevaluate its strategy and its troop deployments in light of the conflict in Ukraine.

Russian defence ministry denies sending troops into Ukraine

Moscow (AFP) Aug 28, 2014 - Russia's defence ministry on Thursday denied US and Kiev claims of its troops' direct involvement in the escalating fighting between Ukrainian forces and pro-Kremlin insurgents in the separatist east.

Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov told Russian news agencies that the "information has no relation to reality" and that army units believed by Washington to have crossed into Ukraine were conducting "tactical training exercises on their own and outlying ranges."

The comments were the first by issued by a senior Russian official in Moscow since the US ambassador to Kiev accused Moscow of providing air defence systems to the rebels and becoming "directly involved in the fighting".

The defence ministry spokesman said Russian army and paratrooper forces "were indeed capable of successfully performing assignments associated with the armed protection of the country's territorial inviolability."

He added that Russia's ongoing series of training missions in regions that include those near Ukraine "were the normal work of any army".

More German Armor For Arabia

Qatar is following the example of its neighbor Saudi Arabia and buying 62 German Leopard  2A7+ tanks. Saudi Arabia is buying at least 244 Leopard 2A7+ tanks from Germany. Qatar is also buying 24 PZH-2000 155mm howitzers. The deal for the tanks and artillery is worth $2.48 billion and includes spare parts, training and tech support.

 

The PzH (Panzerhaubitze, or armored howitzer) 2000 was built to replace the 1950s era American M-109s in German service. The PzH 2000 is larger (at 56 tons, compared to 28) than the M-109, has a longer range gun and a smaller crew (three compared to four men) and more capabilities and features as well. This enables the PZH 2000 to deliver more accurate fire over longer distance and do it quicker than other artillery.

 

The Leopard 2A7+ is an upgrade of the 2A6 model. That upgrade included more armor on the sides and rear (especially to protect against RPGs), more external cameras (so the crew inside could see anything in any direction, day or night), a remote control machine-gun station on top of the turret, better fire control and combat control computers and displays, more powerful auxiliary power unit and better air conditioning, and numerous other minor improvements. This increased the weight of the tank to nearly 70 tons.

 

The Leopard 2A7+ has added improvements to mobility (engine, track laying system, wheels and related gear), better soundproofing for the crew, more, and better, thermal sights, and more effective ammunition for the 120mm gun (fragmentation shells that detonate above or behind a target).

Until three years ago the 55 ton Leopard 2A6 was the current version, and is a contemporary of the American M-1. The 2A6 model has a stabilizer (for firing on the move) and a thermal imager (for seeing through night, mist and sand storms.) Germany has been selling less capable refurbed 2A4s since the 1990s (after the Cold War ended and the German army was much reduced in size.) This enabled many nations to inexpensively upgrade their aging armored forces. In the last decade, many nations have upgraded their Leopards to the A6 standard. Many nations prefer to continue upgrading their Leopards, mainly because there are no new tanks to buy, thus the appeal of an upgrade to the 2A7+ standard.

 

Saudi Arabia is concerned about Iran, which has a force of 1,500 much older tanks (most of them Russian T-72s and T-54/55s). Saudi Arabia has 1,300 tanks, most of them older American M-60s and French AMX-30s. But the Saudis also have 370 U.S. M-1s and more on the way. The 244 Leopards will increase the Saudi edge. The Saudis also have the money to buy spare parts for their modern tanks, and Western instructors to provide the best training. But the Iranians are better soldiers, so they might have an edge there. 

 

Qatar and Saudi Arabia have a mutual support treaty with each other and other members of the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council). For more than a decade the GCC has made plans to deal with the Iranian threat. The key here is coordinating the air and naval forces of the GCC members, and close cooperation with foreign (especially American) allies. The GCC weapons are more modern and numerous than what the Iranians have. Add in American, and other foreign forces stationed in the Gulf, and the Iranians are up against a formidable force. While the Iranians have always been better fighters than the Arabs the GCC states have sought to give their troops more training, using Western trainers and techniques. This may not have eliminated the Iranian advantage but it closed the gap.

 

The Gulf Arab states have a long history with Iran and other hostile outsiders. The solution has always been to seek unity and outside allies. In the 19th century, the coastal emirates (city states that depended on trade, pearls, and fishing) allied themselves with Britain, for protection against the Turks (who controlled what is now Iraq), Iran (always a threat to the Arabs), and the interior tribes of Arabia. Britain was interested in suppressing pirates (which often operated out of the emirates) and halting Turkish expansion. In 1971, seven of the emirates formed a federation: the UAE (United Arab Emirates). There were immediate disputes with Saudi Arabia about where the land and water borders should be. Some of those disputes are still unresolved. The Saudis consider themselves the leader of Arabia, but most of the people in Yemen, Kuwait, Oman, and the UAE often disagree. There is lots of friction. Nevertheless, in 1981, the Gulf Cooperation Council was formed by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The UAE was the chief organizer of the council and has constantly quarreled with Saudi Arabia over leadership issues. But when it comes to outside threats, especially the Iranians, there is less quarrelling and a lot more cooperation. It's uncertain if this will be enough to thwart the Iranians. Only an actual war will reveal the reality of the situation.

Turkish Tanks Head For Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has agreed to buy some of the new Turkish Altay tanks. The exact number has not been revealed but the Saudis do have 320 elderly AMX-30 French tanks in urgent need of replacement. 

The Turkish Army is planning on buying a thousand of the new Altays for about $5.5 million each. These will be acquired four lots of 250 each and not all may be needed (depending on the regional military-political situation. The Turkish Army currently has 720 German Leopard 1 and 2 tanks, 930 American M-60s and 1,370 American M-48s Most (except for the Leopard 2s) are quite old and need replacing soon.  Turkey doesn’t really need 3,000 tanks when half the number of more modern ones would do. Altay is similar to the 338 Leopard 2s the Turks currently have. Most of the rest are Cold War era tanks and rapidly approaching retirement age.

 

Yet another reason for the Saudis to buy hundreds of Altays is to cement an unofficial alliance with Turkey against Iran and anyone else who might threaten Saudi Arabia and its immediate neighbors. Earlier France proposed replacing the French made AMX-30s with the AMX-56 Leclerc. The 65 ton Altay seems a better fit than the 55 ton Leclerc and Turkey is a lot closer than France. 

 

Moreover the Altay is similar in many ways to the 400 M1 tanks the Saudis have (in service or on order). Both have a 120mm gun, composite armor and high-end electronics. The two tanks are so similar because two years ago Turkey paid South Korea $400 million for rights to much of the technology in the new 55 ton South Korean K2 tank. This vehicle was in turn based on the 1980s K1, which deliberately emulated the M1 design in many ways and did so with the cooperation of the United States. The K1 and K2 proved to be successful designs and the Turks already had decades of experience maintaining and upgrading American M-60 tanks (the predecessor of the M1). With the addition of the South Korean tech the Altay rapidly took shape. 

 

The K2 has a number of new electronic defenses. These include a laser detector that will instantly tell the crew the direction the enemy laser beam is coming from. Most tanks use a laser range finder before it fires its main gun. The K2 fire control system also enables the main gun (120mm) to be used to hit low flying aircraft (helicopters, mostly). There are also numerous improvements to the K1 mechanical and electronic systems, as well as more armor (both composite and ERA). This will make the K2 easier to use and maintain. An autoloader reduces the crew to three men. The Altay is more heavily armored than the K2 and does not use the auto-loader.

Tank Transports Dying Of Old Age

The U.S. Army is running out of heavy trucks and rail cars that can carry tanks and other armored vehicles long distances. Armored vehicles that run on tracks wear out quickly if they travel long distances. The tracks and the “running gear” (wheels and related mechanical components) are not durable, because of the heavy weight of these vehicles and the vulnerability of these “track laying systems” that are used because they are the only effective way to enable heavy vehicles to move cross country. After moving about a thousand kilometers under its own power the heavier (over 20 tons) tracked vehicles have to stop and replace worn out components. Because of this, armies use special flatbed railroad cars and tractor trailer trucks to move armored vehicles long distances. Both the rail cars and special trucks owned by the U.S. are wearing out and budget cuts are making it difficult to buy replacements.

 

A decade ago the army had about 2,000 Heavy Equipment Transporters. Each consisted of a heavy duty tractor that could haul 80 ton tanks on a flatbed trailer. These M1000 HETs (Heavy Equipment Trailers) cost about $400,000 each. The trailers weigh 25 tons and are 16.1 meters (52 feet) long and also carry lots of cargo, which they often do when not hauling M-1 tanks or other armored vehicles. The 20 ton M1070 tractor that usually pulls this trailer has a six man cab, so the tank crew can be carried as well. A decade of heavy use in Iraq and Afghanistan has reduced the number of working trainers to about 1,500 and some of these are in need of refurbishment.

 

The situation is worse with the special rail cars. The army bought 6,000 of these in the late 1960s but they only have a useful life of fifty years. The 1,300 owned by the Department of Defense have seen little use, but are dying of old age. New ones cost about $150,000 each. Another 4,500 are actually owned by railroads but the Department of Defense paid to equip them with the special features that enable them to carry tanks. These were more heavily used (to carry other cargo) and are all going to be gone because of old age. 

 

The army can improvise, if need be, using stock flatbed rail cars to carry tanks. It takes time to install additional features needed for this. Meanwhile the army still has some tank transport capability with the special tractor trailers, at least the ones that are not in the shop because of heavy use in the last decade. 

 

The rail car deal in the 1960s was in preparation for a major conventional war with the Soviet Union. That threat is gone, but there is still the possibility of tanks being needed in a hurry for some future war. Being ready for such a movement (of tanks from army bases to ports) is costly and may be too expensive in the face of budget cuts and the need for so many other items of equipment. Then again, the United States has deactivated most of the armored units it maintained during the Cold War. Thus there are not nearly as many armored battalions to move to ports.  The thousands of rail cars built to move tanks were built for a mobilization that is no longer possible.

India - More Power for the T-90

India has bought 10,000 9M119M1 (Invar-M) anti-tank missiles for their T-90 tanks. The Invar is fired from the 125mm gun, like a shell, but operates like a guided missile. The 17.2 kg (37.8 pound) missile is 680mm (26.7 inches) long and has pop-out fins (with a 250mm/9 inch span) that aid in guidance (laser beam riding, controlled by the tank gunner). The missile has a max range of 5,000 meters at a speed of 350 meters a second (14 seconds max flight time). The Invar enables the tank to hit targets at twice the range of the 125mm shells. The tandem warhead can penetrate up to 900mm of armor (35.4 inches). Invar has been around for two decades and India is buying the latest version as well as a license to manufacture another 15,000 of them. 

India expects to have about 1,400 T-90s by the end of the decade. The first T-90 entered service in 1993, and India is the largest user. The T-90 is basically an upgraded T-72, which India already builds under license. The T-90 weighs about 15 percent more than the 41 ton T-72. The T-90 has a better fire control system, night vision that is good out to about 1,500 meters, and electronic countermeasures against anti-tank missiles. The autoloader, which often failed in the T-72, is more reliable and that makes the three man crew (commander, gunner, driver) more effective. The T-90 has ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) in addition to its composite armor. 

The T-90 is not as lively as the T-72 and is actually slower on the battlefield than the U.S. M-1 (which has a horsepower to weight ratio of 24:1, compared to only 18:1 for the T-90). The 125mm gun of the T-90 is basically the same as the T-72. However, if you use better ammo, you stand a chance against top rated tanks like the M-1. But that is not what India expects to face. The most likely opponent is Pakistan, which is largely equipped with 1950s era T-55s (actually the Chinese T-59 copy). The Pakistanis also have 700 or so older T-72 type tanks (Chinese T-69 and Ukrainian T-80), but these would be outclassed by the T-90. India plans to have 21 tank battalions ("regiments" in the Indian army) of T-90s (with 62 tanks each) by 2020. Actually, each battalion only has 45 tanks going into combat. The other 17 are for training and replacements

IDF deploys tanks near Egypt border, in violation of peace treaty

Following Monday morning's cross-border attack, army deploys tanks to site of incident; according to Camp David Accords, both sides obligated to keep area demilitarized.

 Israeli tanks near the Egyptian border, June 18, 2012.

In an unusual move, the Israel Defense Forces deployed two tanks to a site near the Egyptian border on Monday morning, following a cross-border attack in which one Israeli was killed.

Deployment of tanks to the area is prohibited according to Israel's peace agreements with Egypt. According to the Camp David Accords, the area is to remain demilitarized, with Israel prohibited from deploying tanks, artillery or anti-tank missiles.

The tanks were deployed after assailants launched an attack along the border. Following the incident, the tanks were withdrawn from the area.

The IDF emphasized that it had no plans to deploy additional tanks to the area, noting that the tanks were sent as a result of the unusual incident.

According to an initial investigation, three terrorists managed to penetrate the fence along the Gaza-Sinai border on Monday morning. The attackers then placed an explosive device and waited for Israeli vehicles to pass.

When a vehicle arrived, the attackers detonated the device and opened fire. The IDF's Golani Brigade later arrived on the scene and began to exchange fire with the terrorists, killing at least two of them.

The attack followed several days of intelligence warnings.

Security in the Sinai Peninsula has deteriorated significantly since the fall of former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak.

In August of 2011, Egypt deployed thousands of troops along with tanks to the Sinai, in an attempt to re-establish security in the region. The move was coordinated with Israel.