Talk:M1 Abrams/Archive 2

magic bullet
anyone knowledgeable on the topic of Abrams tanks will find this news item  interesting. Maybe info from this news story can be incorporated into this article. Kingturtle 04:45, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It was a specialized Russian anti-tank round. An isnurent got a crackshot at at the M1's turret joi section where he chassis and turret meet, it penetated the thinner armor near the NBC system, drill through the loaders seat, riocheted off the floor, from the ceiling into the TC's chicken vest on the turret floor.

-- Weps

Theres some new Iranian made anti-tank weapon. The weapon exlodes nearby sending a molten jet of metal twords the tank,AFV or APC. Dudtz 3/7/06 6:41 PM EST

New? It's called High Explosive Anti Tank Dudtz, and it's been around since World War II. Virtually every modern military has a HEAT weapon in one form or another. It's nothing new. (USMA2010 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Its not like a rocket or shell,it does not explode on the tank's hull like most HEAT weapons. I was saying it was new becuase it was manufactured by Iran recently. You can have a new car,but cars have existed for 100+ years Dudtz 6/25/06 1:00 PM EST

Expolding before it hit the tank's hull wouldn't work, as by the time the jet reached the armor, it would have lost a considerable amount of energy.
 * And, as a final note, I'd like to add that the Iranians almost definatly didn't create any new armor defeating weapon by themselves, certaintly nothing that penetrates like this. I'd be more than willing to bet that if this new weapons does exist, that the Chinese or Russians had a hand in it. (USMA2010 07:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

The size of the cylinder used is 100 mm or larger. I saw it on the news,I knew it was a heat weapon,because they described the damage,and it had copper at the end of the cylinder. Dudtz 6/27/06 1:06 PM EST

I believe you are referring to the explosively formed projectile (EFP) mines which have been showing up in Iraq lately. It's similar to a HEAT round (which doesn't form a "jet", rather a plastic flow of metal, but that's a whole different argument), but the standoff is much greater, to the order of tens of meters. The metal liner on the explosive has a much shallower concave face than a HEAT round, more like a dish than a cone. Been around since WWII. Riddley 00:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know why, but I've always called the molten bolt a jet. Not really certain where or from whom I picked that up, just one of those things I guess.
 * Well, apparently what Dudtz is describing is a mine, which couldn't have been what we're looking at here. (USMA2010 05:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

I was describing a "roadside bomb". Plastic flow? It is supposed to be molten metal,not a bond of hydrogen and carbon. Dudtz 6/29/06 3:03 PM EST
 * Different meaning of "plastic". Ah I see someone has already enlightened you. Riddley 13:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Plastic flow": A solid deforming under pressure in a fluid manner, as if it were a liquid. The metal in a HEAT projectile isn't molten, rather, it's liquified from the extreme forces being applied to it. --Carnildo 22:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In physics, melting is the process of heating a solid substance to a point (called the melting point) where it turns liquid. Dudtz 6/30/06 3:10 PM EST

jet is right about the efp's, although efp stands for explosively formed penetrator, not projectile. i was in iraq working as an intelligence analyst in the mnc-i when the efp's started coming in from iran. the efp's can't penetrate the side or frontal armor of the abrams. as far as i can remember, the only documented case of an actual abrams kill by efp was on christmas day 2005, when an efp penetrated through the road wheels and hit the fuel tanks, setting the tank on fire and killing the crew. i haven't been able to find any information on that attack to properly document it, but i know it happened as i watched the tank burn over uav feed. it was, in any case, a very lucky shot for the efp to hit the fuel tank. Parsecboy 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Desel fuel does not burn well without being compressed. Dudtz 8/2/06 5:04 PM EST
 * Diesel will burn readily when drawn through a wick and even more readily when volatized and vaporized by an existing fire. Compression isn't needed at all. Riddley 23:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is still better than having gasoline in your vehicle in combat.Dudtz 7/3/06 3:54 PM EST

To the best of my information the abrahms doesnt use diesel. It uses aircraft grade kerosene type fuel.

as for the type of fuel the abrams uses (from the article itself): "The tank can be fueled with diesel fuel, kerosene, any grade of MOGAS (motor gasoline), or JP-4 or JP-8 jet fuel; the U.S. Army uses JP-8 jet fuel in order to simplify logistics." Parsecboy 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don`t fool yourselves - it was just an good old PG-7VL rocket propelled HEAT grenade from good old RPG-7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.82.170.157 (talk • contribs)


 * Not the attack I described. I watched it happen, and read the incident reports; it was an explosively formed penetrator. Parsecboy 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

two deaths
another important article from the army times. please incorporate into this article
 * Good catch, put it into the article. --Fuzheado

Not surprising. A 500lb road bomb going off under anything would kill the crew.

this line
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)

The T-72, though inferior to the M1, is no garbage. It is still capable of inflicting grievous damage in ranges under 1,000 meters, which is respectable lethal envolope out of the desserts. --Chin, Cheng-chuan

A Soviet produced T-72 with all the fixings could hold it's own against an M1. Definatly a T-64 could. --Weps

Even another Abrams is unable to penetrate the front or rear of an Abrams. Russian 125mm rounds fired by T-90 and T-80U have weaker armor penetration so would also be unable to penetrate. An Abrams with a DU APFSDS-T or a Leopard 2 A6 can destroy a T-90 or T-80U with a single round at 4000m. If a T-90 (which is a modified T-72) or T-80U can't stand its own against an Abrams (or Leopard 2, Challenger or Merkava) what makes you think a T-72 could? --Marcel

Lol, so an abrahams is invincible even from behind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.234.80.5 (talk • contribs)

Once agian, spelling Abrams wrong.

Not a fair comparison. The T-72 was not designed to kill an Abrams in a one-to-one fight. It was designed to kill an M60 in a seven-to-one fight. —Michael Z. 2005-12-28 09:56 Z 

Soviet technology from ww2 is still reliable,look at the IS2 + IS3,the 122 mm gun went trough the front of a panther,through the compartment,trough the engine and out the back,it would still cause severe damage to an Abrams. Dudtz 2/3/06 9:47 PM EST


 * 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))
 * 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)

The IS2 won't do any damage to an Abrams. Even in WW2 the gun of the IS-2 was very poor in armor penetration. It was a heavy breaching tank, poor in tank performance but very good with HE ammo against targets such as infantry, pillboxes and anti-tank guns. A IS-2 could only kill a Tiger II at 200m or closer, which is worse performance then the M26 Pershing or Sherman Firefly. When it comes to tank to tank fighting an M26 Pershing would outperform an IS-2. Against an Abrams an IS-2 would only damage the paintjob. :)

From the Lion of Babylon tank article: "...There was speculation about incoming friendly-fire from Apache helicopters of the U.S. 3rd Armored Division deployed to the south, but one of the four M1s (B-23) was definitely hit by a non-depleted uranium discarding sabot shell, since no radiological trace was found (see item B in the following link).

This doesn't proof anything, DU rounds are only very slightly radioactive (less then an X-ray machine), only the tip is depleted uranium. The slight radiation would not be seen compared to the radiation background (there is radiation all around us).

Wrong, the whole penetrator is Depleted Uranium. -Weps

An official document (scan), shows a drawing describing the projectile path right through the tank hull, defeating the armour on both sides, a kind of harm that only a large kinetic energy penetrator could make (the Hellfire missile fired from the Apaches has a high explosive anti-tank warhead). Had a Hellfire hit the tank, the path depicted would have shown a sharp downward angle. This is the summary (scan) detailing Abrams B-23's damage. Note that this text mentions two rounds hitting the Abrams, the first of them (a shaped charge weapon) being probably an AGM-114 Hellfire missile blast through the rear grill doors, while the second unknown  round is almost certainly that depicted in the ballistic's sketch, likely from an Asad Babil gun. The damage taken from this second hit, as is described in this unclassified article, was catastrophic." In my opinion, the statement should be removed. UDoWs

Since even "Silver Bullet" rounds from other Abrams which killed T-72s are 3km+ range (went straight trough, in some cases its kinetic energy alone was enough to knock out the turret and penetrated even when the targets were covered behind thick berms) were unable to pentrate the turret front and side of an Abrams and a T-72 (and even a T-90 and T-80U) has less armor penetration what makes you think an Iraqi T-72 could? In reports of Abrams hit by 125mm rounds the rounds simply ricoshet off without doing damage. There is only 1 way in which a T-72 could take out an Abrams, from the rear into the engine (which would immobilize it) or in the rear turret (which would probably set of the ammo and activate the blow-out panels).

Guys, You have to remember that T-72/T-80/T-90 and T-64/T-84 are completely different tanks series. While T-72 was interior to M1 and pretty cheap, T-64 was MUCH stronger and wasn't exported out of country. I believe in case of US-USSR conflict T-64 had to have better kill ratio than Abrams as well as some modern modifications of T-64 are stronger than T-90. AlexP.

Short paragraph added on September 17 to the Lion of Babylon tank article transcribed in italics to UDoWs citation. Dagos Navy

There have been alot a few destroyed and puled out fo sercive. and the abrams owns the t72 due to the fact the abrms can get a hit from a rather range and on the move. and t-72 fired at abrams in the iraq invasion in 91a nd 03. just becuas we did a good job and ndestroying alot doesnt mean they all wer knocked out(216.49.71.194 18:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

All of this is besides the point. It's not the tank, it's the round that you throw at it. Load a T-72 up with a modern round and it will take out an Abrams in short order just so long as the gunner can aim straight, load an Abrams with either the wrong kind of round or an inferior round and its shots will bounce off a T-72. On top of this, put a poorly trained crew in any tank and it might as well not be there. The Tank is only half the equation. - perfectblue 13:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Reduced capability of export variants?
Does anyone know what was reduced?


 * I think they lacked the armour with depleted uranium (but I am not entirely sure). -- Jniemenmaa 10:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the US promised Israel to equip the Egyptian M1's with alumina CMC's only--MWAK 07:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The DU armor was removed, that is the cheif difference. It should be noted here that it is standard procedure in the US to reduce the capabilities of our equipment sold abroad, I believe even to our closest allies such as the UK and Germany. (USMA2010 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

- "The Abrams is so large that the largest US transport aircraft, the C-5 Galaxy, can only carry one at a time."

I toured a C-5 yesterday at an airshow, and I'm not sure I believe this. The Abrams may be big, but the cargo bay of a C-5 is absolutely enormous -- you could park a couple dozen SUVs in there. Weight shouldn't be an issue either. Two Abrams tanks weigh 278,000 pounds combined, while a C-5 has around 291,000 pounds of cargo capacity. --Carnildo 00:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that in the C-5, you have all of the tank's weight concentrated at one point in the aircraft instead of distributed evenly throughout the hold. One tank is bad enough... two tanks would exert tremendous pressure on the aircraft's frame. The fact is that if the C-5 was strong enough to lift two M-1's without sustaining structural damage the military would already be doing it. --Cavgunner 07:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not true. Aircraft just aren;t the efficient at moving armored vehicles, RO/RO (roll on - roll off) transport ships are more better at since they can generally transport several hundred vehicles at once. Aircraft are only useful for that work if you need and small number of tanks, and you need them ASAP --Paladin 17:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the article to indicate the difference in sources, with a cite saying two included in the revision note in the history. Other source information is welcome if anyone has more definitive information. Jamesday 06:59, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with the C5. It was designed to carry 120 tons, but due to a calculation flaw, the main wingspars started to show signs of cracking after a few years in use. The C5 had to be limited to 96 tons to prevent crashes and disasters. This leaves only one Abrams per Galaxy. During the 1990's some, but not nearly all C5's were rebuilt with new wings and can carry 120 tons again. However, two Abrams will only fit if they are partially dismantled and need 72hours of crazy hard work to make the tanks combat ready on destination.


 * The ex-soviet An-124 Ruslan can carry 150 tons (three T90 tanks or two Leopard2) and have been recently hired by the EU for a long term strategic airlift contract. The An-225 Mryia was record-flown with 253 tons (five T90 tanks in it), which is scary, but there is only one Mryia in existance. See funny picture:

TUSK system
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

"Other Variants"
The mine plow and mine roller attachments which are available for the M1 series do NOT change the vehicle's designation or mark it as a "variant." These items are merely accessories, not upgrade kits or anything like that. What is the concensus on this?


 * If it's a part that can be added and removed in the field, then it seems to me it should be classified as an accessory. If it's something that takes factory-level modification or that results in the vehicle getting a new designation, it's a variant. --Carnildo 06:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Where does TUSK fit into this ? You can fit in the field - but it's clearly a substantive upgrade. I've restructured the variant section slightly maybe it fits in better now Megapixie 07:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The article states that the Abrahams 'can detect the enemy in smoke, rain, fog, snow, or total darkness, from four kilometers away'. I can believe that it can detect the enemy 4km away during daylight or even at night. I can believe it can detect enemies through rain, fog and snow. But I can't belive it can detect ememies through 4km of rain, fog or snow. There must be some degradation of the detection range caused by these conditions surely? --Shimbo 12:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For an object the height of an Abrams, 4000 meters is about the distance to the horizon. I think that's more of a limitation than the weather. --Carnildo 18:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, dudes, which one among you can list all the variants of the M1 tank series and their differences? I know the names of this many: M1, M1IP, M1A1, M1A1HA, M1A1HA+, M1A1HA++, M1A1HC, M1A1D, M1A2 and M1A2SEP. Confused yet? I surely am.

Actualy the Thermal is only responsive to heat, so rain, fog, and snow won't show on a thermal imaging system. (Well, a massive rain, snow or sandstorm can still "fog" your thermal imaging. )

Also there are 9 variant of the M1:


 * XM1 (Experimnetal)
 * M1 (Basleine)
 * M1IP (Improvment Production)
 * M1A1 (Baseline)
 * M1A1HC/HA (Heavy Common/Heavy Armor)HC and HA are the same tank variant with added DU.
 * M1A1HC-D (Digitalized)
 * M1A1HC-AIM (Abrams Intergration Managment)
 * M1A2 (Baseline)
 * M1A2 SEP (System Enhancment Package)

No such tank as the M1A1HA+ or M1A1HA++

-- Weps

"Actualy the Thermal is only responsive to heat, so rain, fog, and snow won't show on a thermal imaging system" They all have a temperature,it will most likely show,maybee not very noticable but there is a good chance it will show. Dudtz 2/2/06 5:54 PM EST

Ahh, but "how much" is the question. After Action Reports indicate shammals at least, is not a problem in most cases for TI. Metal conducts heat differently from the ground and the water. An eviroment with extreme fluctuation in temperature is going to make the tank's thermal signature stand out. Chin, Cheng-chuan

IPM1 (Improved Product M1) per Zaloga "M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982-1992" (Osprey New Vanguard 2, p10) and other sources.

M1A1HC apparently was interim designation, is called M1A1 Common Tank by US Marine Corps (ibid1, p12 and USMC). Not verified that US Army internally calls this variant the M1A1HA+, and has upgraded hull and turret armor compared to the M1A1HA. M1A1HA++ also not verified as US Army internal designation for M1A1 tank with Block G upgraded armor package fielded ca. 1998 (Block G referenced in ibid1, p15). M1A1 Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) recapitalization program apparently does not use HA/HC suffixes as it is currently a life extension rebuild and not an upgrade; AIM may also apply to M1A2 series during the next decade (www.globalsecurity.org on M1A1). M1A1D is objective endstate of M1A1 AIM rebuild program, featuring digital hull and turret network boxes, 2nd gen thermal sights and far target designate capability (ibid2); unverified that M1A1HA++ tanks already have applique digital systems added for FBCB2 (network) compatibility, with no apparent change in designation (not M1A1D). US Marine Corps upgrading their tanks with Firepower Enhancement Program (FEP), has far target designate and 2nd gen TI but not digitized like the M1A1D; IOC in 2006, with all tanks to be upgraded by late 2009 (ibid2 and USMC).

M1A2s required extensive modifications in late 1990's to make them operational; modified and subsequently fielded as M1A2 FY 2000 (www.globalsecurity.org on M1A2). These are FBCB2 compatible, unlike the first M1A2s (used incompatible IVIS system which was scrapped when vendor support evaporated). --Basileus Ioannes 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Found a web discussion source for M1A1HA+ and M1A1HA++ ca. 2003: http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c477.htm --Basileus Ioannes 04:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears the fielded M1A1Ds (two battalions with 4ID according to immediately preceding link) have been removed from service as of September 2005; it was apparently an interim test model to give the M1A1 more digital networking than that found in the M1A1 AIM: http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=58455&page=1

This makes the following M1 series designations:


 * XM1 (11 preproduction pilots)
 * M1 (baseline)
 * IPM1 (Improved Product M1)
 * M1E1 (14 prototype M1A1s)
 * M1A1 (baseline)
 * M1A1HA (Heavy Armor)
 * M1A1HA+/Common Tank (FADEC, armor upgrade, Marine features)
 * M1A1HA++ (Block G armor upgrade)
 * M1A1D (M1A2 SEP features, 95 converted, removed from service)
 * M1A1 AIM (Abrams Integrated Management rebuild)
 * M1A1 FEP (Firepower Enhancement Program, Marines)
 * M1A2 (baseline, IVIS, removed from service)
 * M1A2 FY2000 (modified M1A2 with FBCB2, air conditioning)
 * M1A2 SEP (Systems Enhancement Program)

Non-MBT variants include the Panther II remotely controlled mineclearing vehicle and M104 Wolverine heavy assault bridge; Marines are developing a combat engineer vehicle which sounds a lot like the Army's abortive Grizzly complex obstacle breacher. --Basileus Ioannes 04:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

M1A1 AIM SA
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)

Never Destroyed During First Gulf War?
It seems like propaganda they were new at the time and made to look soo kick arse It just seems very hard to belive that none were destroyed An Iraqi insurgent can destroy one with an RPG today but no one could back in the early 90's wepons haven't chnaged much in the last 10-15 years any Leopard 2 or T-90 would be a good match Dudtz 7/20/05 2:09 Pm


 * The Iraqis didn't have any Leopard 2 or T-90 tanks, most of the tanks they did have were destroyed by air attacks, and the IEDs and RPGs that are wrecking them today depend on close-quarters ambushes that weren't possible during the first Gulf War. --Carnildo 21:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say Iraqis had them but even the technology back then could have taken them out An Iraqi in the first gulf war could have made a small unoticable pillbox and wait until the tank passes by and hit it in the rear Dudtz 7/29/05 5:20 EST

One M1A1 tank might have been destroyed by Iraqi fire in the 2nd Gulf War of '91 (first was Iraq-Iran) by a 125mm hit to the rear of the turret, initially thought to be a blue on blue incident. The fighting in the '91 war was conducted in vast desserts, where there was no place for either tank nor infantry to hide. US tank crews would have picked up any Iraqi opposition on the thermal imager and brutally rip them apart with withering fire. In the war of '03 city battles were far more common, hense greater attrition on the M1 tanks. Tactics and battlefield is far more decisively than technology in this case. --Chin, Cheng-chuan

No one M1A1 has ever been totally destroyed. Fact being the rear of the turrent has it's lovly blast panels for ammo stowage.

I don't think thermal would have done much during the day the soldier and the ground are at hot temperatures Dudtz 8/23/05 4:40 PM EST

Thermal sites are standard, but the M1 also has daytime sights. --Weps

Thermo site is the standard site on the M1 tank, designed for both day and night use. It can see infantryman in a desert. --Chin, Cheng-chuan

Not when the temperature of the air is arround 98 degrees. Dudtz 11/27/05 3:28 PM EST

(Lol, not the air temperature, the GROUND temperature should be around 98 degrees....)

Actually,yes, when the temperature of the air is arround 98 degrees. At 1991 human thermo signatures were detected at 4k. In 2003 dismounts attacking at daytime during a sandstorm was wiped out by M1 tanks. One AAR states that Iraqi gunmen could be spotted by 2 gen. TI and electro-magnification beyond 4k. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

Actually, no, as the temperature difference with solid background objects make things stand out. Think of the density of air, think about water temperature of 10 degrees vs. air temperature of 10 degrees. Same temperature, but more mass, more infrared photons emitted. Maybe you should check out Thermography...

You have too much confidence in modern technology,Radio jamming ,radar jamming,and IR disrupting causes allot of problems for modern armies,I'm supprised the Iraqis havent used this stuff yet. Dudtz 12/22/05 5:28 PM EST

It would take alot of chaff to dirupt the Second Generation FLRI of the M1's TIS.

My information is not the result of confidence in modern technology or any form of 'expert' speculation. What I said--that IT gear has no problem whatsoever at picking up human thermal signature at 4km--came from a well documented engagement in 91, confirmed again by US veterans from the war who had personally been a part of the said engagement. As for electronic warfare, it is able to cause lots of problems for a modern army. The proof of that is the Iraqi army at '91, which was at the recieving end of a full fledged EW warfare. If it is surprising that the Iraqi army had not tried to utalize electronic warfare against the US Army, it should be remebered that they had not utalized basic marksmanship against the US army, either. -Chin, Cheng-chuan, March 23, 2006

The Iraqis were so foolish,they were only using half the powder and a steel shot. Dudtz 1/3/05 6:34 PM EST

Okay wiseguy. Give me one Goddamned documented incident in which the Iraqis in 1991 wisened up and used your gee wiz ideas. Oh, by the way, they were using steel shots. -Chin, Cheng-chuan


 * Drifting back to the topic of the discussion. I'm reading "The Gulf War Chronicles" by Richard S. Lowry (you can peep inside at amazon/google I think). Apart from being one of the most one side accounts of any conflict I've ever read he mentions several M1's being knocked out, though it's not clear by what. Specifically at the Battle of 73 Easting.(Page 169) where it states that four tanks of task force 1-37 were hit and disabled.:
 * D-24, engine knocked out, gunner and loader injured.
 * A tank in Bravo company. Hit twice, crew bailed, then the tank burned.
 * C-22, disabled, no injuries.
 * C company command tank, hit twice. Damaged - not clear if it was disabled.
 * www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1325961/posts also mentions this.
 * Does anyone know what hit these tanks ? Given they were engaging Iraqi armour at short range it seems likely that an Iraqi tank was responsible for at least one of the hits. Megapixie 03:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Answering my own question. It looks like two of them may have been friendly fire:
 * http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du/du_tabh.htm#TAB%20H%20-%20Friendly%20Fire%20Incident%20Descriptions
 * Tanknet forum discusses losses. Apparently the story has changed several times. http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=7430&st=60 . Megapixie 04:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The mentioned use of Hellfires would explain much...--MWAK 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have heard of one Abrams was destroyed by an oil drum(no oil in it) packed with c4,and 17 were damged so much that they were not worth repairing. Dudtz 6/31/06 9:39 PM EST

The article about the Iraqi T-72 Lion of Babylon tank describes that at least one tank from the 24 ID (Desert Storm) was almost certainly disabled and set on fire by two hits from a 125-mm main gun. Two pics of the M1A1 are included. There is also a link to an US official damage assessment likely about the same tank, which acknowledges that this Abrams was hit by three sabot rounds from a T-72. There are also two other possible examples, one in 1991, the another during Iraqi Freedom.

DagosNavy 8/7/06 23:27 PM EST

I've posted a photo of a M1A1 matching the damaged depicted by an official 1991 statement.

DagosNavy 9/28/06 17:20 (UTC)

All the talk of no M1A1 being destroyed by an enemy tank is irrelevant, as the threat it faced during the first Iraq war was so minuscule. What do I base this on? Check out the Bradley Fighting Vehicle site. It states the Bradley destroyed more Iraqi tanks than the M1A1. Yet only 3 Bradleys were lost to enemy fire. The Bradley's armour can protect against 30mm rounds with the newest armour package. What does this mean? It means the Bradley was almost never hit, because a direct hit by a 125mm T-72 cannon firing good ammunition would guarantee a kill. The fact is that the T-72's used terrible ammo and had WW2-quality targeting, because they were crap export variants with local-built sub-sub-par ammo. The U.S had air superiority, artillery superiority, ground superiority, reconnaissance superiority. One can hold up the first Iraq war as a test of the M1A1's reliability and supply requirements, not of its anti-tank combat performance. 203.45.85.74 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Max

upgrades
"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)
 * The factory doesn't produce any new M1 tanks of any type. (No new M1A1, no new M1A2, no new M1A2-SEP, etc). All future M1 types are planned to be upgrades/refurbishing/remanufacturing of the existing tanks (obviously with older types being remanufactured first), with no brand new tanks based on the M1 being manufactured.Occasional Reader 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Iraqi Tanks
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)Max

Eighty M1 Abrams tanks have been destoryed in Iraq as of May 2005.
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)

100mm smooth bore or 100mm rifled? What kind of ammo,HE,Frag,HEAT,APDS,APFDS? If AP what is it made out of? Please specify your 100mm 2/14/06 5:45 PM EST
 * 100mm smoothbore firing roundshot. :-) --Carnildo 07:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

I'm guessing that you are not aware that Rolling Stone has been involved in political reporting for decades, including watershed articles by the late Hunter S. Thompson. Amazingly enough, you can look it up on this very wikipedia, so next time you critize a source, why don't you look it up first? 68.11.135.130 23:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone qouting Rolling Stone as a basis for facts on military affairs is nuts. Greenday's album sales yes, confirmed kills of M1's....not so much--Looper5920 08:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the standard of destroyed? US Army believes that any tank that can be salvaged and put back together isn't. It's pretty hard to damage a M1A1 to that point, since catastrophic destruction from 2ndary effect is highly unlikely. One must rely on brute strength to achieve that level of damage. The two 4th Infnatry Division M1A2SEP destroyed were hit by 2 improvised mines, each some 150+mm caliber shells wired together. Cajone Eh, the tank K'Oed by a RPG shot to the rear engine compartment during the assault on Bagdad, required an incindiary grenade, multiple HEAT hits from 120mm smoothbore and two maverick to be destroyed. On the other hand, eight tanks knocked out during Desert Storm is a quite believable number. Chin, Cheng-chuan

Wow chin your off. It took one m829 in the rear of the turret, one thermite, and two mavericks. Not multiples heat rounds.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

Actually Cojone, Eh was disabled by a recoiless rifle, and several measures taken to assure destruction such as several thermite grenades, a HEAT round, and one maverick, but it still looked intact from the outside. I looked it up in the book written about the thunder run in which it was disabled. I changed the article to reflect this.LWF 02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

M-1E1
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)

Whispering Death
"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)
 * 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)

--Cavgunner 01:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Yes, the turbine does make a lot of noise- to the rear. In fact, if you are standing in relatively close proximity to the rear of the engine deck that whine is quite deafening. However, once again most of that sound energy IS directed out the rear of the vehicle. As a tanker I found that if an M1 is approaching you head on, and it makes good use of terrain to mask its approach, by the time you hear the turbine (assuming it's an otherwise quiet battlefield) the vehicle may very well be less than half a kilometer away. On an open battlefield this leaves the defender with mere moments to react to the situation. This is why they call it "Whispering Death." In any event, it is typically the sound of its weaponry engaging the target that announces an M1's arrival on the battlefield, not its engine noise.

But is that half-kilometer hearing distance better than other tanks? I remember reading about that nickname for the Abrams before I joined the Army and the first time I heard an Abrams I couldn't believe someone would call it that. I really don't think the Abrams is much quiter than a tank powered by a conventional diesel engine. DarthJesus 22:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

They should make ATGMs that lock on to the engine noise and IR signitures,it would be good to have both guidance systems bacase you would not want your misslie hitting echos. Dudtz 4/21/06 10:04 Pm EST

IR signature or radar is a lot more reliable then engine noice... the battlefield is pretty darn loud. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

Propaganda driven article with a bunch of lies and distorted facts
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)

Armour values/estimates for M1 - should we include them ?
I just reverted armour values from the article, on the grounds that they were unsourced and no official figures have been provided. I have seen plenty of speculative figures for the armour of the M1, but I am unaware of any official figures. Should we include various estimates by reputable published sources (i.e. not web forums or our original research) in the article ? Megapixie 01:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You did the right thing. Armour values for tanks in service are almost always suspect, since these are military secrets, and modern tanks may be periodically upgraded anyway (as new ones are manufactured, in factory refurbishing, or via swap-in composite armour modules).


 * And check that the sources cite their sources, too. I recently found a decent article on the T-80 with respectable-looking tables of 'Estimated Armor Protection Levels'.  But the original source for these values is a wargamers' site, with figures based purely on supposition for the convenience of wargamers.


 * I've also seen respectable-looking articles in news sites and weblogs, written by journalists who don't understand military technology at all, and simply spout "facts" they looked up on mil-fan sites. —Michael Z. 2006-06-27 00:28 Z 

Anything created can be destroyed
This is my opinion on things...

I'm pretty sure a Maveric Missile can easily destroy an M1, the latest versions have a 300 pound warhead.

The M1 is vulnerable to high calibre shots from the sides and the rear. General Wesley Clark, while he was on CNN as a commentator on the 2003 Invasion mentioned the vulnerabilities of the Abrams himself, which was odd coming from him.

Repeated RPG shots attaking the top the sides and the rear of the tank will destroy an M1, not just disable it.

The AT-14 Kornet can kill an M1 as had been done in the 2003 Invasion. What I'm saying is that the M1, while a great tank is like everything else not invincible. Enemies do adapt and find ways...

In my opinion the M1 is too hyped up. Personally I'd rather be in a Merkava than in an M1...atleast I can carry troops to weed out enemy anti-tank teams or carry out wounded, or carry extra ammo. Hell I even have a 60mm mortar...gotta be happy with that! The only reason why it hasn't been exported is because America says no. The engines and some of the systems on the Merkava are of American origin. If the Israelis sell it, the Americans will see it as a threat to M1 sales and will retaliate by cutting of some aid and support. No kidding...

Tomcat200

The Abrams is a very good tank,but I probably would rather be in a T-90 with Kontakt-5 and I would be armed with Svirs or I would have a Black Eagle. Dudtz 5/21/06 12:04 PM EST


 * The Merkava is not export capable. Its dimensions and weight prevent air mobility, which is important for most customers. Its track and roadwheels are of a specialized design for very dry weather and stony terrain of the Holy Land. It would become a "submarine" in the rainy, muddy weather that is so common in the european theatre, for example. Think of the demise of nazi KingTigers. Its mobility is not en par with the M1 or the Leopard2, not even with the 1200hp engine, because of the front engined design. In export only the conventional (engine rear, cannon in the middle, crew forward) tank shape is successful: Leclerc, M1, Leopard, T90. Consensus says Leo2 is the best tank currently.


 * First of all have you compared the Merkavas dimensions with the other tanks??? What you wrote here was rubbish. All the main battle tanks in the world are not air mobile capable: No helo designed or in service anywhere in the world can carry them. Nor can they be parachuted...too heavy. All these MBT's including the Merkava, can fit aboard the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster air transports to be airlifted anywhere on the globe. The Merkava Mk 4 has a 1500hp GD833 Diesel Engine and additional armor, especially up top, for urban battlefields. Ever been to the Holy land? You get all types of terrain there, not the stereotypical desert/arabian landscape that is always seen on TV. There are forests and swamps in Israel, and up north the terrain is especially rough and it snows too. What consensus are you talking about? Israel has had more battlefield experience with the use of armor and armored warfare in general than any country on this planet. The weight of the Merkava Mk 4 is approximately the same as the M1A2SEP. It has more crew protection than the Leopard tank and has an active self-defense system. It also retains the 60mm Mortar which can be fired under armor. BATTLEFILED MOBILITY of the Merkava series of tanks is better than both the M1 and the Leopard. It is true that both tanks are faster than the Merkava but the Merkava was designed with emphasis on crew protection, survivability and firepower, over speed. The Merkava is more survivable in a firepower-saturated environment meaning it can go places the M1 and Leopard cannot. For this reason the Merkava has more freedom to maneuver, which gives more options to it's operators and commanders, and allows more aggressive courses of action. The enemy cannot simply deny areas to the Merkavas by firepower, meaning the Israeli tank has better battlefield mobility than the Abrams and Leo 2. I'm not really saying that the Merkava is invincible but it is more survivable. You have to survive in order to conquer.Tomcat200

I'm sorry, but your comments here about the Merkava are baseless garbage. The Israeli armed forces, like the SAS and SEALS, are a favourite subject of warsimmers, airsoft enthusiasts, plain Walter Mitty types and armchair strategists for mythologising. You might not "really say" that the Merkava is invincible, but you make a great deal of other grand claims about its capabilities. From where is this information derived? Personal experience of it and other tanks, or from bone statistics? There is a gulf of difference between first-hand knowledge of a piece of equipment in theatre or exercise and web write-ups. And this assertion, "Israel has had more battlefield experience with the use of armor and armored warfare in general than any country on this planet" (straight out of Soldier of Fortune or Combat & Survival magazines, that phrase), has been repeated ad nauseum for the last 25 years for no purpose other than aggrandizement of the Israeli military. What was the IDF contribution to the brigade-sized tank battles during six years of WW2, in all theatres from North Africa to Finland? Or Korea? Or, for that matter, GRANBY and TELIC (Gulf Wars Mk1 and 2)? The Merkava, OT but since you bring it up for reasons known only to you, is built to narrow IDF operational requirements, fits them perfectly. No other tank beats it for "low-intensity conflict" (what a contradiction in terms!). Yet no other nation has seen fit to mimic any of its distinguishing characteristics (button-down mortar, front-mounted engine, etc). Israel's heavily subsidized arms industry does a roaring trade in every other field, but they know better than to offer the Merkava for export. I know a lot of guys in Iraq would find a dozen or so very useful right now, but what would they do with it afterwards? Do you think a mortar and a 4-man troop compartment (more like 2 or 3 fully loaded squaddies) is going be much use to anyone if the DRPK start hooring down the 38th Parallel?

"I would have a Black Eagle."

Yeah, and I'd love to fly to work on a unicorn, myself...

When all is said and done, what really gives the Israelis the advantage is their excellent crew training. THAT is where their battle experience has been most useful. It is good drills and - if possible - experience in the field that are critical to REAL-LIFE warfare, not dry statistics. But I suppose that's impossible to convey to a bunch of Airfix modellers. Another fact to keep in mind is that the British Army and the septics now have a new generation who have experienced tank-on-tank warfare while the Israelis you fetishise so much have been busy dealing with stone-throwers.

Anyway, that's enough for me. If you lot want to carry on this pathetic "teh Abrams is indestructabble!!!" and "t72 loads crewmans arms into the gun" guff, go ahead. It will only show you up as a bunch of net-based fantasists. If your only knowledge of AFVs come from sources like Wiki and Janes, then these arguments will continue ad infinitum.---Andeee McNab


 * The t-90 can be parachuted by the russians via the russian way of parachuting heavy equipment, they use rockets that ignite a few seconds before touch down and thereby slowing the rate of descent. And the t-90 is better and cheaper then the merkava, it can out range it, it can out run it and it can out manouver it and it is lower and lighter. The army of India tested all MBT and found the t-90 to be the best, if any other tank would have been better they (the indian army) would have bought it and not the t-90. Also the t-90 has one less crew member and uses an auotloader. An auto loader never gets tired, never complains never has back pains and an auto loader can reaload when moveing over bumpy terrain and at high speed a human loader can not do that. (RabbitHead 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Human Loaders will always out load a Autoloader. Your Avg Loader can load that round in about 3 to 5 secs.  i think autoloaders do it in about 8.  Plus when you have a auto loader, you lose that 4th crewmember, who is usefull for keeping look out for Threats.--Tonker83 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

For the price of 1 Abrams,you can buy 3 T-72s. I would rather out number the enemy with cheaper tanks rather than using tanks of the same price. "Israel has had more battlefield experience with the use of armor and armored warfare in general than any country on this planet."-Tomcat 200 What about The Soviet Union/Russia,USA,or Britain. Dudtz 6/17/06 5:22 PM EST

T-72 is an ancient machine not to be relied on in a head to head battle with modern tanks. Or the Russians wouldn't have relied on T-64/80 series for their cutting edge in the first place. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

Re: repeated RPG shots - 1st pltn K/3/11ACR ambushed 21May1967 near Suoi Cat, Vietnam; an M48A3 took 14 penetrating hits from recoilless rifles and RPGs, rangefinder wrecked, coax wrecked, .50cal wrecked, driver unconscious, but main gun remained operational, tank did not burn, fired numerous canister rounds until relieved, one crewman died of wounds after the battle (http://www.ktroop.com/bandana.htm).

Re: T-72 vs Abrams - B Co 2nd Marine Tank Bn 0550hrs 25Feb1991 Kuwait, in night lager with only a few M1A1s powered up on watch, finds an entire T-72 battalion oblivious to them advancing in column. 14 M1A1s against 35 T-72s. In 90 seconds, 34 of 35 T-72s were destroyed. No damage to M1A1s. One M1A1 crew destroyed seven T-72s with seven rounds (Zaloga, "M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982-1992", Osprey New Vanguard 2 p36). May need more than 3 T-72s for each Abrams. --Basileus Ioannes 04:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A T-72 with an experienced crew armed with Svirs and/or 3VBM19/3BM42M could easily defeat an Abrams. The experience of the crew is one of the most important factors in winning a fight. Dudtz 6/25/06 12:53 PM EST

"Easily" is a massive overstatement. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

I said could,so the possibility of being easy is open. Dudtz 6/30/06 3:08 PM EST

Okay... that's move this discussion into more concrete grounds. What is BM-42/Svir's estimated RHAe value? Well bellow the estimated capabilities of the Arbam's frontal armor. What is the average hit probability from an T-72? Well inferior to M1's ballistic computer, TI, and laser range finder combo. How likely is it for the T-72 to find the Abrams before the TI pick him up? With glass sights and IR, not very likely. Just because theoretically a T-72 could kill an Abrams by a well-placed flank shot in close range, doesn't mean the T-72 actually have a realistic chance to survive the process of manuevering into position for such a shot. The T-72 is an obsolete tank--but don't take it from me. Take it from Vasili Fofanov.

-Chin, Cheng-chuan

Do you think the Abrams would havea chance to manuever into position? I can spot an object 2 miles away with few obstructions and without any fancy targeting systems. The T-72 systems should be more than sufficient for targeting the Abrams. Both have their advantages and disandvantages. Dudtz 20:13, 17 July 2006

I don't know what kind of eye sight or what size of objects you have got. 20/20 and barns? According to US Army field manual at 2km the average person can distinquish individual trees. Seeing a tank at 3km? I don't think so.

And you are surely aware that most battle fields are not (in your words) 'flat, featureless deserts'. TI is the most effective at reducing concealment. Those battlefields that are open plans make terrific killing zone for the less armored and armed targets.

Chin, Cheng-chuan

Hey chin cheng chuan. If the RHAe figures for the abrahms armor and for the penetration of the t72s main gun are accurate at anything under 1200 meters (close range) a t72 can take out an abrahms through the from armour, not just the flanks. However the m1 crew wouldnt let the 72 get that close, and if it did wouldnt let it get of first shot.

Also the merkava is one of the most survivalbe tanks in the world. It is more survivable than the M1A2 SEPS for sure. With just a bit of searching you will be able to find videos of them taking multiple hits from ATGMs which would likely incapacitate an abrahms.

Guys it's just not the gun, it's the round also. I have many doubts about russian KE rounds against western mbt's.


 * I don't know what estimates you are talking about. M1A2SEP is a complete overmatch against 125mm KE sabots at any range. Pre-"Heavy Armor" M1s can probably be penetreated at 2km by contemporary 125mm shells according to the best publically available estimates.


 * And we don't know anything "for sure."

-Chin, Cheng-chuan


 * LOL WHAT T-72?! The upgraded T-72BM1 "Rogatka" is better than T90A. It even have an upgraded autoloader with longer loading space - for longer rounds. Hey - and don`t forget the ZBM-48 and "Invar" ATGMs! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.82.170.157 (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * You have to consider a few things. Firstly, the T-64/72/80/90/95 are only high-protected when fitted with explosive armour (Kontakt ERA tiles). When three tons of "Kontakt-5" tiles are applied to the T-80, not even the US 120mm uranium arrow projectiles can defeat it, this has been tested in Aberdeen on examples bought for cheap from ukraine in the mid-1990s. The reason for this applique approach is that soviet T-tanks were mostly designed for a european total nuclear war theatre, where anti-cannon armour does not matter much, you get neutron bombed anyhow... With reduced built-in armour the T-64/72/80 tanks were fast and easy to move on terrain with only 41 metric tons heavy and manouvering is the only way to survive in a nuclear war.


 * However, the russkies usually do not export full-spec weapons to dubious countries. The T-72 tanks arabs got were downgraded, no laser, no gun computer, no explosive add-on armour, softer tip APFSDS arrow ammunition, no airconditining (in a desert country, crazy!) and the autoloader spare ammo drum had only one direction of rotating (slower reload). Without the protective ERA tiles of course iraqi tanks could not withstand US 120mm hits and with their reduced hardness ammunition of course they could not kill Abrams tanks. If the yankee were facing a russian guardian tank army, the result would be very different, also because arab armies have poor training and officer skills mainly due to widespread corruption and nepotism in their social system.


 * All in all, iraq wars say nothing of the T-72's merits. BTW, early in the iraq-iran war, a unit of iraqi T-72s totally destroyed a big unit of iranian Cheiftain heavy tanks of british origin. At that time iranian army was deteriorated due to lots of purges among veteran officers after the islamic revolution, so it probably says more of human skills, not the tanks' conparison.


 * It is well known that the Merkava tracks and undercarriage is optimized for the Golan heights, lot of stone litter, never rains. It is a fact that front engined tanks do not work well in soft terrain due to excess nose weight, the swedish Strv-103 tank failed 3 times out of 3 on a very simple test circuit which the oldtimer Leopard1 passed with flying colours. Most armies of the world refuse the jewish stance which is very afraid of soldiers lost. A traditional army would think it is better to have a WIA or KIA tank driver (traditional rear engine tank) rather than destroy the tank's powerplant (in Merkava), due to enemy fire. The Merkava design is very specific and not good for bigger size countries which have massive reserves of manpower for warfare. 195.70.32.136 11:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The heavy ERA fitted on many newer T-80s and T-90s has been said to often deflect or shatter early M829 rounds but the M829A2 and today's M829A3 can cut through that without much trouble. An ERA panel only give you one use too. The T-72 tanks Iraq had were T-72As and T-72Gs which had less armor protection than Russian models and no laser rangefinder but besides for that they were not as horribly downgraded as some will tell you. They did upgrade some of their own tanks with laser range finders and are said to of had some M-84As (Yugoslavian made T-72s) which featured that and armor comparable to real Russian T-72s. Their ammo quality varied but it was not all bad. Basically even the improvements the real T-72 had would not have been enough for the M1. I have to disagree about the Merkava's design because these days even countries with huge reserves of manpower react strongly to losses which when compared to other wars are quite small.

105 mm Gun
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)


 * It's already there, in the "armament" section. --Carnildo 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Debate continues but one thing is sure...
If you control the sky, the seas, and have the most advanced military on the planet, you're going to have a far better time of defeating your enemy than they are to get a chance to attack your main battle tanks. The U.S. military holds the current distinction of having the most superior military that the world has ever seen. In a straight on war, the U.S. will decimate its' opponent in short order. A properly protected battle tank includes infantry, artillery, and air support as much as you need good armor. When the U.S. military attacked Iraq in both wars, the Iraqi force had been so decimated that the invasion was more of a mop up operation than anything else.

In the second war, the U.S. Army was moving so fast that it was leaving its' supply lines in the dust. But when the Abrams engaged an enemy unit, the Abrams performed perfectly. A good example of how not to conduct an invasion is what Israel did recently with Lebanon. The war started without having troops in place for the invasion, bombed targets that created huge collateral damage, and suffered casualties that it could have avoided. This makes Hezbollah believe that they have "God" on their side and their attacks become more bold and more focused. This is a huge contrast to how Israel conducted the 1967 war. I heard today that they have finally got their act together and are now conducting the war in the best possible way: push forward towards your ground goal, surround enemy pockets leaving them to wither, and move into enemy territory as fast as possible. I was elated to hear they are finally following sound military strategy.

Anyway, I would still favor an Abrams tank over any other tank because of the obvious upgrade potentials and stable superior firepower. Jtpaladin 00:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, instead of talking about the M1 Abrams, which is what this page is for, let's talk about Hezbollah and Israel. Idiot.


 * Yep, ignore the troll. He's not even making a point, just mentioning all of the hot buttons.  Besides, what kind of idiot brings a main battle tank to a knife fight?  —Michael Z. 2006-08-14 05:09 Z 
 * I seem to recall the Italians showing up with tanks at a swordfight once. They lost. --Carnildo 06:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi depleted uranium ammo?
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)

Coaxial Gun
What is the advantage of having a 7.62 mm machine gun mounted on the same turret as the main gun? Wouldn't it be more effective to give it its own turret or ommit it in favor of a slightly bigger main gun? Puck01 17:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That would just make it more complicated for the gunner to aim and fire it. The calibre of the main gun is not limited by the size of the relatively miniscule machine gun, but adding a sub-turret and controls would be more complicated and heavier than the coax machine gun.  Omitting the machine gun altogether is not an option—it is needed for antipersonnel fire, and even a single main-gun round probably costs and weighs much more than the whole machine gun. —Michael Z. 2006-11-12 17:33 Z 


 * Plus the coax can be used for checking the aiming of the main gun. If the coax fire hits, chances are the main gun will too. It can also be used for situations when the main gun is too much for the task, and the others are too light.LWF 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the British Chieftain's (and possibly Centurion's) heavy coax was set up as a ranging machine gun, with ammunition specially charged to have the same ballistic characteristics as main-gun rounds.


 * This is not the case with most modern tanks, which have sophisticated computers and whose main guns have a much longer effective range than any machine gun. The Abrams' 7.62mm coax is the lightest gun on the vehicle, and useful for antipersonnel and suppression fire only (while the heavier .50-cal is effective against light armour, perhaps masonry buildings or hasty fortifications, and maybe even for sniping with a good gunsight). —Michael Z. 2006-11-12 20:16 Z 


 * As a point of reference, the ranging machine gun was introduced in the Centurion and remained in juse on the Chieftain until replaced by a laser system. It was generally considered better than any contempory system used in NATO.


 * I've often wondered, if it worked so well, why no one copied it. Since it had to be cheap, what was th eproblem? Was it slow? DMorpheus 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It gives your position away. Tracers work both ways, after all. --Carnildo 21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * During the cold war the West's creed (well, mainly America's, but they were a big influence on military thinking and purchasing around the world) was that superior Western technology would beat superior soviet numbers. This lead Generals etc to frown upon low technology solutions such as a gun aimer's machine gun in favor of optical solutions. - perfectblue 14:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Identify type of round
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)

Could someone please fix this part of the article?
"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)

The Short Ton weight in the top infobox seems to be wrong,the M1 A1 Abrams I think is closer to 60 tons and not close to 70 tons. Dudtz 11/25/06 10:10 PM EST


 * 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)

Image of M1?
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) John


 * yeah, you're right. i'm going to delete the image. Parsecboy 17:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Main gun lethality claims?
In the 'main armament' section, it's claimed that the 120mm main gun on the Abrams is capable of scoring a 1-shot kill on advanced Soviet MBT's such as the T-80U and T-90. Where's the verification for this statement? As far as I know, the most 'advanced' Soviet-made tanks the Abrams has engaged have been ill-maintained Iraqi T-72's in Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Could someone provide an explanation for this claim or correct the article as nessicary? Thank you. Orca1 9904 17:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Orca1_9904


 * The one hit kill is true only if the "Kontakt-5" brand add-on reactive explosive armour is NOT fitted to the soviet made tanks. Arab armies got very downgraded specs soviet tanks without this extra armour, so it was easy for Abrams to kill them.


 * All ex-soviet member country T-64/72/80/84/90 tanks use the ERA and they resist hits from Abrams'. This is x-ray photo of what happens to the arrow projectile when it hits the Kontakt-5 armour: http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/obps.jpg

sure, the Kontakt-5 can defeat M829 and M829A1 penetrators, but not the more advanced M829A2 and M829A3, which were specifically designed to defeat the Kontakt-5 ERA. now, i can't say as to the new Kaktus ERA, but as far as i know, it hasn't been fielded yet. Parsecboy 21:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

that's because they have the newer, more advanced M829A2 and A3 penetrators...the old M829s and A1s wouldn't penetrate the ERA. take a look at that picture posted above...that's what ERA does to the old KE penetrators.Parsecboy 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ERA has little effect against KE rounds. According to American and Dutch tankers I spoke with both the Abrams with DU rounds and the Leopard 2 A6 with the L55 gun can destroy a T-90 or T-80U (which ALWAYS have K5 fitted) at 4000m with a single shot. This is further supported by the facts. The front turret (thickest part) armor protection against kinetic energy rounds of a T-80U is comparable to 570mm RHA without K-5 fitted and 720mm RHA with K-5 fitted. The front turret (thickest part) armor protection against kinetic energy of T-90 is comparable to 560mm RHA without K-5 and 740mm RHA with K-5. This means that the armor protection which K-5 adds against kinetic energy projectiles for T-80U and T-90 are 150mm RHA and 180mm RHA respectively (the diffirence is probably that the T-90 has more K-5 fitted). Not by a longshot enough to defeat any KE tank round completely. All it does is add a little bit of additional protection. It will only help to stop a KE round which has less then 720 or 740mm RHA penetration. The total armor of T-90 and T-80U INCLUDING Kontact-5 is comparable to 720 and 740mm RHA respectively (http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-90_armor.html, http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-80u_armor.html). The penetration values of Abrams L44+M928A2 DU and Leopard 2 A6 L55+tungsten round are 986mm RHA and 1000mm respectively. You don't have to be Einstein to see that these penetration values exceed the KE armor protection values of both tanks by a large margin. As for actual facts. Germans have done tests in which a brand new T-72 and T-80U were shot by a Leopard 2 A5, in which all rounds went straight trough (in trough the front, out trough the back) both tanks at a range of 2km. I have heard this from a German tanker, he also said that a college told him that in case Russian tanks do not have K-5 that APFSDS is not required, in which case HEAT or training rounds are enough. They are very light armored, which is also supported by their weight, being more then 10 tonnes less then their heavy armored western counterparts. They are cheap and simple, designed to overwealm their western opponents by numbers. Western quality VS Russian quantity. -- Marcel

Those numbers for RHAe are only good to a certain point. Do you know what ERA does? It doesn't just add to the RHAe, it actively destroyes the kinetic penetrator, unless the penetrator is designed to defeat ERA, such as the M829A2, which does a marginal job, and the A3 which is quite better. Do you know what ERA is? It's a slab of high explosive sandwiched between two plates, usually steel or another dense metal, that when a penetrator strikes it, explodes, driving the metal plates together, generally deflecting or destroying the penetrator. Read the wiki article onERA for a good description of Kontakt-5 ERA compared to KE penetrators. Parsecboy 19:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tanks disabled
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?

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.
 * Have you see this pic? Is that a photo of Abrams A-22?


 * 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?.

DagosNavy 6:10, 13 January 2007
 * 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.

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)

Technically, A-22 was destroyed, although in a freak way, by enemy fire. The official chronology states secondary explosions from a burning T-72, so I cite this source in the listing. Well, if not about A-22, the official account may come certainly from another tank, since NO radiological readings above normal values were found by the AMCCOM team, one of the rounds hit the frontal turret armor and the recommendation of the researchers was to return the vehicle to normal maintenance channels, not to be buried as in the case of the contaminated ones (A-22 among them). I hope for another folk with Gulf war memories to come out to solve the mystery of that Abrams ID. Once again, thanks for your help.
 * Thanks a lot for your info and your photos!. By coincidence, I made a reassessment of the damaged & disabled table today.

DagosNavy 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Camo
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)

Missile Countermeasures Device.
Does anyone have some photos of the Missile Countermeasures Device on Marine Corp M1A1 Abrams? Also do any other models such as the M1A2 SEP have the same or a similar device? Where would this be placed when the tank has the commander's independent thermal viewer such as on the M1A2?

WMD Protection System??
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)

Actually, the correct term is now CBRN: Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear. The article has been changed to reflect this. Parsecboy 10:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Phil Lett
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)

ammo types
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)


 * They're listed in the "main armament" section. Parsecboy 12:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda?
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)


 * 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)

The Iraqi insurgency routinely claims things that aren't true. They've posted videos and claimed to have destroyed Abrams tanks with car bombs when the actual result was a cracked taillight and some dead civillians -around- the tank in question. M1s are bricks. Kensai Max 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

M1s are only designed to be Bricks so far as other tanks and fixed emplacements are concerned. This means from the front and from the side. The Abrams' large engine and exhaust system is its main weakness. A solid round from behind will deal with one just as it will deal with just about any tank, though the Abrams' large engine makes it particularly vulnerable as even if you don't actually destroy the engine (which is harder to do than it sounds) you can cause it to overheat or to loose fuel which will render it immobile. Adding anti RPG grills (grills designed to detonate an RPG at a short distance) have helped somewhat, but tanks as a whole are vulnerable in this way, even the Abrams. - perfectblue 14:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Abrams Development History
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)


 * Yeah, I can help proofread as well. Parsecboy 11:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard Time ...
buying this "flipped tank" thing. imho, the tank is a beast, but i doubt it could drive away and shoot or look at the attackers. i think that this should be removed untill proven.

Back to the factory
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)

Service history and deployment
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)