Talk:M1 Abrams/Archive 2

message: combat history: "No Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank."
do we need this line ?
:It demonstrates the power of the Abrams, so I don't see why it should go. -- CrazyCanuck
Aside from out-dated Iraqi tanks, has any other tank ever fired at one? Lirath Q. Pynnor
Yes, freindly fire by other Abrams. In which no round was able to penetrate the front and side turret. It was able to penetrate the rear which activated the blow out panel. I think surviving M829A1 "Silver Bullet" rounds gives a lot of credit to the armor protection. 
-- Marcel
May I interject. The US Army is current;y using the M829E3, third generation Sabot. -- Weps
Soundslike Propaganda Marcel. A Sabot what dont penetrates side armor? i have seen videos where Iraqi RPG7 destroyed Abrahams from the side. Typical american Hubris. no tank is invincible. a twin charged RPG can easlily penetrate 1,5m stell. the side armor of the M1A2 counts as 700mm steel.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.234.80.5 (talk • contribs) 
Oh really? You can't even spell Abrams. FYI, the flank armor on the Abrams is not RHA (steel). Once again another news junkie trying to win an argument. PS. it's RPG-7v --Weps
The T-72, while old and technically outdated, is no slouch. Jrkarp
The T-72 is a piece of garbage. Ask the Soviet army (old Soviet army) when it pulled out of Easter Europe why it left almost all of its 72's behind? The 72 is really nothing more than a partially re designed T-60 and is worth little more than a paper weight shortly after being introduced. TDC 01:22, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
:You mean we spent a trillion dollars to fight paper weights? What a shame! I also feel very curious about the exact occasion when the Russian army left any T-72's behind! Perhaps you could point out which tank precisely was superior to the T-72 in 1973? (answer: the T-64) Also, does the term OPFOR have any meaning to you? )O}
The M60A1/A3 and Chieftain were. The M60A1/A3 outperformed the T-72 in several conflicts.
MWAK--84.27.81.59 10:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is somewhat of a difference between a Panther's armor, and that of an M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams. Ya know, just a bit... (USMA2010 19:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but only because those expensive silicon carbide CMC's at the front would get crushed ;o). Only the back and the lower hull side could be penetrated.--MWAK 07:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this line 

message: I've removed the following (press release?) from the article.  Some of the information from it should probably be merged in, but I don't have the time to do it now. --Carnildo 19:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok well lets leave it in the article until you do. In the meantime I will trim it down to get rid of some of that press release wording. 19:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: What do you think now? I moved the descriptions to front, removed some quots, and put others in to italic. Muchenhaeser 19:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's still a mess.  #1, it's a primary source, and thus not suitable for direct inclusion in the article.  #2, it's too long. --Carnildo 20:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I dunno about your primary source thing, as there is a lot quotes around and in this case its mostly just giving info about the system anyway. If your into shortening though, go for it. Ill trim some more out myself right now. 23:35, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added it properly.  Could you add the URL you got that from to the "references" section? --Carnildo 03:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Nice job with the re-write there, I agree that is a much proper way to have it in the article. I did have the source listed there intially but I can dig it out of history and put in on the page again.  Muchenhaeser 04:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TUSK system

message: Sorry to be a party pooper. This discussion and the article is complicated as it is but, there appears to be another variant - SA, Situational Awareness. From what I've been reading over the web going through official and unofficial channels (ie. defence forums/publications), the package appears to have originated in the Australian purchase (M1A1 AIM). Has been mentioned in General Dynamics press releases. The Aussie Abrams are also fridge and umbrella capable . 
PS: If you want your statements taken seriously please post as a registered user. Anonymous posts are always suspicious. Htra0497 06:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  M1A1 AIM SA 

message: "a system overhaul that returns all A1's to zero hours" -- explain that better?
It rebuilds the entire vehicle replacing any worn part that could possibly fail.
There is only one m1 abrams factory and they dont even make new m1 abrams they just retrofit old tanks and fix everythign thats broken or needs repair. they make a1's into a2's and repair all engines. i got this info from a new episode of mail call.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Esskater11 (talk • contribs) 
* There's no point in making the older M1 type that's been superceded by the M1A1 and M1A2. -Fnlayson 05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  upgrades 

message: From M1 Abrams:
"The Abrams remained untested in combat until the Gulf War in 1991. A total of 1,848 M1A1s were deployed to Saudi Arabia. The M1A1 was superior to Iraq's Soviet-era T-55 and T-62 tanks, as well as degraded Russian T-72s which lack night vision (hmm, didnt they have Image Intesifiers? )and any modern range finders and locally-produced copies (Asad Babil tank). "
From Lion Of Babylon Tank:
"The Lion of Babylon tank (Asad Babil) is an Iraqi-made main battle tank which is a version of the Soviet T-72 tank. They were built in a factory established in Iraq in the 1980s. They are equipped with additional armour at the front and rear as protection against missile attack."
"The vehicle occasionally features laser range-finder technology, but this is the exception, rather than the rule. In all other respects, it is (at least physically) identical to the first model T-72. Nevertheless, the two differ considerably, both in the quality of construction and durability of materials used"
The M1 Abrams article says that it lacked range finders,but the Lion Of Babylon Tank article says that range finders are on the Lion Of Babylon Tanks.
Dudtz 12/6/05 7:05 PM EST
Most Iraqi tanks were T-62 and T-55/54 series, a large number of them being Chinese clones. Those are the fair of reular Iraqi army. They, of course, had no laser range finders. The T-72s were the perogative of the Republican Guards, and note the language of the entry: only SOME are armed with laser range finders, and those are "the exception rather than the rule." The Iraqi army did suffer from a crippling lack of modern fire control system as a whole, so the large impression of the paragraph in question is correct. However, I would agree that the word "any" is inaccurate. Also, the word "fire control system" would be more appropriate in this paragraph as well. 
-Chin, Cheng-chuan
Not forgetting that the Iraqi Armor Corps outnubered U.S. Armor units 10:1.
You dont need modern fire control systems if the crew is good enough.Dudtz 1/1/06 &:50 PM EST
I suppose ballistic computers, laser range finders, and thermal imagers are all a waste of money, and the fact that average engagement range in ETO during WWII is under 1km is due to the fact that homo sapiens in 1940s are retarded by today's standards.
BTW, Iraq's T-72 tanks are either T-72M or M1, both are completely obsolete compared to the T-80BV that was the Red Army's main weaponry.
-Chin, Cheng-chuan
Im talking about open flat desert with no mountains,little vegitation and few hills,In Europe,you had allot more obsticles in your way.
SSI made a good tank simulator called Panzer Commander,It's not in production anymore,but you can probably find it online somewhere.
Panzer Commander would give you some experiance with tank warfare.
Dudtz 4/21/06 10:13 PM EST
LoL, my information are mostly obtained from ex tankers on Tanknet. In Europe's rolling hills terrain NATO expects the average engagement range in Germany to be 2.5km. At that distance you are beyond the extreme limits of a WWII gunner's capacity. At 2.5km T-80BV's accuracy is 60% with sabot, M1A1 88%. Both could achieve this accuracy on the move. Can you claim the same for eye ball Mk 1 and glass scope gunnery? Even in close range encounters under 1km computerized system allows must faster engagement speed and reliable, lethal fire on the move. Without modern gadgets WWII tanks must stop to fire except for point blank range. 
-Chin, Cheng-chuan
The M3 Stuart had a stabilizer.
You can elevate the gun and fire a heat round for a target 2.5 Kilometres off. 
Dudtz 6/17/06 5:34 PM EST
LMAO. While God Himslef can spot, range, and fire in a Stuart when Gabriel floors the tank, He won't hit jack. There is a world of difference between pressing the trigger and hitting. If wishes can make horses, beggars would ride. This the by FAR the lamest comment I have heard from anyone in a long, and I mean LONG, while.
-Chin, Cheng-chuan
So you don't believe that it's stabilizer worked,you under estimate it's chances.
Oh,by the way,get a Wikipeida account.
Dudtz 6/19/06 8:00 PM EST
Oh, the stablizer worked alright. It's just won't get you hits at 2.5km on the move, which any rudimenatry reading of WWII engagements would attest. 
-Chin, Cheng-chuan
::This dudtz fellow is rather lacking in real knowledge lol.  DO NOT GET INFORMATION FROM GAMES.  It is almost always inacurate.  Anyway a greatly skilled crew using complete basic sights and no stabilisation and such is no match for even a semi decent FCS and stabilisation and a average crew.  With a FCS and stabilisation you can make accurate shots while moving at extreme range moving targets.  Without you need to stop and shooting at anything that is moving or any considerable distance away from you will be innacurate.
::Oh and as you play computer games alot try steel beasts.  It is used as a training tool by the US, Swedish and australian army amongst others.  It is the only really accurate tank game.
Where did I say that stabilisation was not needed?
I don't get my info from games.
Steel Beasts,I might try it.
Dudtz 9/29/06 10:38 PM EST
What? I thought you just said you got your info from a game called "panzer commander"...---mdk0642
If you read the "Lion of Babylon" article carefully, you will notice it is an uparmored version of the first production versions of the T-72. The Soviet Union / Russia had upgraded their own T-72s to a different, higher standard than that. 
As far as laser range finders go, even with high velocity guns, good sights and good crew a laser rangefinger will still give you an edge. It may only be a meter of difference at 2k by the time the shell reaches its target, but that's often the difference between a hit and a miss when you're firing at a target that's 3m wide. 
All human beings, no matter how well trained, suffer from the constraint that our cognitive system puts on us. That is why tanks and jets have so many gadgets in them, which work to augment our limited perceptual and cognitive capacities. Of course they're crucial to military success. 203.45.85.74 08:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi Tanks 

message: Eighty M1 Abrams tanks have been destoryed in Iraq as of May 2005. 
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7287564
It is almost impossible to destroty an M1, you can disable it, but not destroy it.
-- Weps
Absolutely possible.
As little as 88 or 100-mm WW2 AP shell to hull/turret side from 700-500 meters will kill the crew and do enough damage to consider the tank "destroyed". It's the crews that make this tanks (almost) invincible
Most anti tank shells/rockets can take out the top armour.
Dudtz 1/3/06 6:29 PM EST
:In the end anything can be destroyed. Heavy mines are a cheap and effective method in asymmetrical antitank warfare. Dropping a 25 kg charge from a building does the job nicely. But the turret sides would not be vulnerable to 100 mm rounds.--MWAK 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 100mm smoothbore firing roundshot. :-) --Carnildo 07:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I was thinking of WW2 100 mm rounds :o). Obviously one can theoretically construct a 100 mm gun that can surpass even today's 125 mm ones. If we limit ourselves to the tank guns really available to the Iraqi's: those of T54/55 tanks, clearly their standard ammunition had an insufficient penetration. With modern rounds it depends on what exact armour configuration the M1 was carrying. If optimised to defeat 100 mm KE-penetrators, it will. But that would probably not be the standard situation because of the weight penalty. Advanced rounds like the M1000 could perhaps just defeat the normal turret side armour at close ranges.--MWAK 08:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eighty M1 Abrams tanks have been destoryed in Iraq as of May 2005.  

message: My uncle has a 1/72 scale model,does anbody have info on this tank?
3/4/06 5:16 PM EST dudtz
According to [this] the M1E1 was the prototype desigation for the M1A1.  That article has commentary on the accuracy of the M1E1 model. --Schwern 22:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  M-1E1 

message: "The turbine is noisy, comparable to a helicopter engine, which gives advance alert to the enemy about the tank's approach."
I found this statement to be a bit odd given the Abrams' nickname "Whispering Death" and its reputation for being quiet relative to conventially powered tanks.
Schwern 22:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is noisy but the tank ususally attacks from 1 or more miles away so not easy to hear (if open terrain like desert, different in more urbaned areas). --Denniss 23:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whispering Death 

message: Please please please people, don't believe this propaganda driven gullible nonsense and drivel of an "article", which does not actually review a tank but instead tries to overglorify it. There are much better sources on the internet (not editable freely), which paint a more realistic picture of this tank and its so called "comparisson" to other tanks. What you see here is nothing more than some redneck posting complete lies, especially about its combat history. Read the book titled "Tank T-72: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow" by S. Suvorov and about distorted american "facts" on Abrams and T-72 performance in Iraq and other conflicts. You'll be amazed by ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity of american publications. You can bet that "no Abrams tanks were destroyed" in either of Gulf Wars is an utter lie. They were destroyed, and they were destroyed by enemy fire, and crews were lost. Pentagon propaganda has been known to hide these facts, and has been publically quoted in saying that it may "demoralize" american public (poor babies can't handle the truth). I wonder if this "article" was written by the same jerk who tried to bash T-72 in their so-called "article" here. Instead of focusing on technical characteristicts, he turned it into a "T-72 vs..." and completely downplayed T-72s performance, coupled with myths and utter lies. Well, you can edit all you want but know that bad karma will bite you in your behind for it some day. As Arnold once said, "Screeeeeeeewwwwwww youuuuuuuuu!!!".
Have a nice day! :)
:I've reverted your edits.  
:*They constitute original research.  You're making claims without backing them with evidence and cited sources.
:*They do not use reliable sources.  Referencing unspecified "American magazines" does not meet Wikipedia's "reliable sourcing" policy.
:*They use loaded language.  You're bringing in unrelated facts (illness in children, for example) to get an emotional reaction from the reader.
:*They draw conclusions not supported by the evidence (large numbers of APFSDS projctiles that did not hit T-72s does not equal large numbers of misses, an Abrams causing a bridge to collapse does not equal a flaw in the Abrams).
:*There's a general unencyclopedic tone (words like 'we', '"seventy-twos"').
:--Carnildo 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda driven article with a bunch of lies and distorted facts 

message: We should make mention that the first versions of the Abrams were armed with a 105 mm gun. AllStarZ 10:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already there, in the "armament" section. --Carnildo 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 105 mm Gun

message: Can anyone provide a source which states that Iraqi forces in 1991 had depleted uranium kinetic projectiles? I have heared they had only old non-DU soviet ammunition. Mieciu K 01:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi depleted uranium ammo? 

message: All you armor guys, I am an Infantry dick and I need your help in winning a bet. What kind of round is this? http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1724639  [posted on Nov. 14, 2006] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.173.88 (talk • contribs) 
That is an MRM-KE round. It stands for Mid-Range Munition, Kinetic Energy. MRM-KE is the wiki article on the subject.
Panzerlied 19:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identify type of round 

message: "Its relatively easy to shoot down attack helicopters, the helicopter is tracked, targeted and 'lased' with the laser-rangefinder after which the fire control computer calculates the speed, wind speed etc and puts the gun in the right position. All the gunner then has to is fire and the helicopter is killed. Tankers routinely train shooting down helicopter in simulators. Shooting down fixed wing aircraft however is more of a challange."
I've no experience in Wiki editing. This whole paragraph appears to be non-informative and written in pseudo-english. Could anyone suggest a fix for this other than just total deletion?
:I have removed the paragraph. To begin with it could really do with being cited. Megapixie 06:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Army fact file the A1 has 67.6 presumably short tons equalling to 61.15 metric tons. Several other sites state something in the 63 presumably short tons range. --Denniss 10:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone please fix this part of the article? 

message: I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this. But this image [] claims to be of the interior of an M1, however it's actually of an M109 self propelled howitzer.
142.167.151.208 06:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, you're right. i'm going to delete the image. Parsecboy 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of M1?

message: Note on the Abrams destroyed or disabled in 91 Gulf War.  The one listed for A Co 4/64 Armor was bumper number A22 (I was part of the crew of A34).  It was most definitely NOT hit with multiple HE rounds from a T72. I was in that unit. We were on a very constricted 2 lane blacktop, weaving through burning and destroyed iraqi equipment, and the tank was destroyed by secondary explosions from a burning ammo truck.
After the battle was over we put two sabot rounds through the turret and one through the hull ammo compartment to ensure that all of the ammo had cooked off before recovery guys came to tow it away.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milesce (talk • contribs) 
You are claiming to be a first hand witness, so I have some questions about the issue:
*Do you remember the exact date and location where A-22 was disabled?
*Have you see this pic? Is that a photo of Abrams A-22?
It seems that the ammo didn't cook off, beside a huge external fire in the storage area and at least one penetrator stuck in, the tank seems to be almost intact elsewhere. I remember you that the ammo compartment in the Abrams is located inside the rear turret, not in the hull.
*Other 3 Abrams in your Division were destroyed by US forces in order to prevent them for falling in Iraqi hands, in the way you describe, on Feb 27 1991. Was A-22 one of them?
*There is an exhaustive account of Abrams hit by friendly DU in the following webpage (see item B). If struck by three DU penetrators, Why A-22 is not included in that official table?.
*An official damage assessment (scan) report claims that an Abrams (may be it wasn´t A-22 after all) was hit by kinetic energy rounds from a T-72, not HE, as you said. 
DagosNavy 6:10, 13 January 2007
A-22 wasn’t destroyed on Feb 27, it March 2, 91 on a causeway in the Rumaila oilfield.  I’m pretty sure that photo is it.  If you look at the third page in this set of photos:
You’ll see a photo of my tank – A-34.  Note the arrow pointing upward on the side, with 3 dots, which designated 3rd platoon, A company.  A couple pages after that there’s a couple of shots of the area where the tank was destroyed.
On the second questions – there are two ammo compartments.  One in the rear of the turret, with an automatic door on the loader’s side, and a manual door on the tank commander’s side.
There is a second hull rack which contains something like six rounds (not sure the exact number, it was, after all, sixteen years ago).  The turret has to be traversed correctly in order to access it through the turret door.  
My guess is the reason it isn’t included in the list of friendly fire incidents was because it wasn’t a friendly fire incident.  As far as I know, it was a secondary explosion caused by burning stuff flying into the turret – there was little enemy fire to speak of that day, the Iraqis were mostly just running away, and the few enemy tanks we saw were either already abandoned or destroyed. Is it possible it was destroyed by enemy fire?  I suppose so, but I don’t think so. In any event, the three penetrations in the damage assessment were almost certainly NOT HE rounds, they were DU sabot rounds fired after the battle by us.
Milesce 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanks disabled 

message: Can somebody write about M1-A2 camo ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.163.233 (talk • contribs) 
M1A2s use the same camo as every other military vehicle: Flat tan for the desert, and three-color woodland for temperate zones.
Panzerlied 19:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camo 

message: Forever and ever the term was "NBC", and in fact searching on the discussion page turns up two instances where this industry standard term is used.  "WMD" isn't used once on this discussion page.  So why does the article use the term "WMD" when everyone and anyone talking about military systems uses the term "NBC".  69.156.114.39 03:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMD Protection System?? 

message: Does any one have any information on Dr. Phil Lett, I used to work in the industry and he was always refered to as the father of the Abrams tank. I noticed that there isn't an article about him in Wikipedia.Mortsey 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Phil Lett 

message: is there a section on the kinds of rounds carryied by the m1?
i know of at least 3 , HEAT kenetic and canisterBoatman666 04:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're listed in the "main armament" section. Parsecboy 12:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ammo types 

message: American propaganda:
"M829 "Silver Bullet" APFSDS rounds from other M1A1 Abrams were unable to penetrate the front and side armor (even at close ranges)"
Same type of propaganda what said, the Tiger 1+2 were invincible....
EVERY tank has weak spots. even the Abrams. only because some US soldiers werent skilled to destroy a good tank but only crap tanks. it doesent mean that its not possible. go to you tube, there are many iraqi propaganda videos where u can see abrams getting blasted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.234.80.5 (talk • contribs) 
Any links? -RoSeeker 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...where in the article does it state that the Abrams is invulnerable? Perhaps you could point that out to me. I believe there's a picture in the Iraq 2003- section of a destroyed Abrams outside a Fedayeen base. So much for the supposed propaganda... Parsecboy 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda?

message: I have the definitive work on the Abrams tank; Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank Vol. 2 by R. P. Hunnicutt. Would anyone here be willing to help me format and add a lengthened and fleshed out development history? - MandaraxDragon on May 17, 2007
* Sounds like a great idea!  I can help proofread/edit.  I guess start by adding details to what this article has already or rewrite some parts if needed. -Fnlayson 06:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I can help proofread as well. Parsecboy 11:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abrams Development History

message: I've come across the claim that during the first couple of years of the latest Iraq campaign 50+ Abrams were either destroyed or were sufficiently badly damaged that they had to be removed from operations and shipped back to America to be put to rights again. Does anybody have a more exact number and a WP:RS to back it up?
perfectblue 14:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the factory 

message: Are their any good number on which countries have Abrams and where the US keeps its ones. EG, how many are on loan to Nato/UN and how many are currently deployed in Afghanistan or in Europe? - perfectblue 14:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service history and deployment