Talk:M1 Abrams

Plant shutdown section

The section seems WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:CRYSTAL and poorly sourced.

• Undue: Other tank articles don't have sections about the shutdown of their manufacturing plant or how it might affect the local community - this article is about the tank itself, such detail is irrelevant to it. It may be relevant at Lima Army Tank Plant and/or Lima, Ohio.
• Recentism: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?". Very unlikely.
• Crystal/sourcing: "should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The "news" source (not sure if buzzDoD even qualifies" is the only one I can find mentioning the shutdown. The General Dynamics site is obviously partisan, and doesn't even confirm most of the sentences it has been used as a reference for.

(Hohum ^@) 22:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is in the US Federal Budget. You are welcome to go and confirm. This issue is under the correct subheader "Future". Zabanio (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you to accurately include reliable references in the article, not just mention them on a talk page. You also failed to address the Undue weight, and Recentism issues, as well as the unsuitablity of using the General Dynamics site, as well it not supporting some of the sentences its used as a reference for. (Hohum ^@) 13:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The citations are WP:NPV and we should not delete cited information, it is called WP:Vandalism. The WP:BURDEN is met. Do you have any information whatsoever that the information is inaccurate in any manner? Why don't we wait a couple of weeks until the mainstream media has a chance to pickup on the story, nothing will be written during the Easter Holidays. Take care. Zabanio (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You haven't produced the reference you alluded to, and ignored the other problems; each of which are enough to remove the material. That the information is not corroborated anywhere else makes it questionable, also much of the material is irrelevant. I will seek a third opinion since we are at an impasse. (Hohum ^@) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

As a new-comer to this debate, I'd suggest that much of the paragraph seems a reasonable addition as a substantive point, although the last sentence and subsequent detailed bullets seems irrelevant for a general article on the M1 (but perhaps relevant in an subarticle on the dispute?) They are also direct quotes, so would need to be in speech marks if used. I'd watch the wording in the rest of the paragraph though, as one reference is quoting General Dynamics as a partisan source ("G-D argues that although the government may continue to own all the equipment at the factory, it will lose the expert workers who know all the secrets in the art of tank construction...") for some of the details, and the other is the GD website, so neither is claiming to be an unbiased source.

I'd recommend something like: "The M1 Abrams is built in Lima, Ohio, although the military is planning to close this factory from 2013 to 2016 in an effort to save over US$1 billion. In 2017 it is then proposed to reopen the plant to upgrade existing tanks. General Dynamics Land Systems, who operate the factory and oppose the closure, argue that suspension of operations will increase long-term costs and reduce flexibility." (with the references added in, of course) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchc2009 (talk • contribs)

Support this wording, a sensible and neutral summary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The section "Plant shutdown" seems ok and relevant to me, but it's not very neutral. There is lots of text about the downsides of the closure - that seems a bit undue, given that there is little text about the advantages. Btw, how many factories are there which produce the tank? If this is the only one or there are only 2-3 factories, then the closure is very much notable and relevant. If the factory producing T-90s (Uralvagonzavod) were closed down, I would naturally add a mention of it to all relevant articles, because that would be a huge development for Russian defence industry. I think the closure of a M1 Abrams factory would be economically significant to the US in a similar way. Nanobear (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hchc2009's wording, or similar, seems appropriate to me. Nanobear, Lima is currently the only factory. This was mentioned in the article, but hidden in the strategic mobility section. (Hohum ^@) 20:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed text:

It has been reported that the military is planning to close the Lima tank plant from 2013 to 2016 in an effort to save over US$1 billion. It would be reopened in 2017 to upgrade existing tanks. General Dynamics Land Systems, who operate the factory and oppose the closure, argue that suspension of operations will increase long-term costs and reduce flexibility.

(Hohum ^@) 20:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Support the proposed text. Any further details can go in the tank plant and local city articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wording seems fine, but this would be better covered as part of a manufacturing section instead of only about future/shutdown/reopening stuff. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have included the agreed text. I'm not sure how Fnlayson would like to reorganise the sections, so have left that alone. (Hohum ^@) 16:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sure. I did not have specific in mind, just something to think about for the future. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Lima Army Tank Plant/Joint Systems Manufacturing Center will not be probably closed. Egypt just recently ordered new build tanks (LATP/JSMC can still manufacture tanks for customers and only tanks sold from US Armed Forces stocks were for Australia and Iraq, Egypt will recive new tanks in knock down kits, these will be assembled in Factory nr 200 near Cairo). Besides this new US Army modernisation plan says that in 2013 starts next major modernisation of M1 tanks fleet. https://www.g8.army.mil/pdf/AMP2012_lq.pdf

It seems that Army want more M1A2SEP's than current 1,547 (this probably means rebuild to this standard all M1 and M1IP's that are still in storage) and to upgrade all older M1A1's to M1A1SA variant.

This means that Army and ARNG want whole fleet to be composed of only two variants. Proof to this is that both Army and ARNG is fielding new M1A1SA's and M1A2SEP's.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2010/16.pdf http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2011/16.pdf

-DamianPL (talk) 13:37, 02.08.2011 (UTC)

Chrysler Experience ?

Chryslers gas turbine experience was very limited (nothing ever in production) and largely unsuccessful, if their gas turbine car is used as reference. But then there are NO REFERENCES to any expertise by Chrysler having experience with gas turbine ground vehicles. That the Abrams has a recuperated gas turbine is probably due to aggressive salesmanship by Lycoming and the "talking point" of a very low infared (IR) signature of the gas turbine due to the recuperator. IR is also why the original M1 had a battery operated auxilary power system, since replaced by a Wankel engine of all things. The excessive idle fuel consumption of gas turbines was supposed to be overcome by just turning the engine off while waiting in the woods of West Germany for the Russians. Yea, sure. There is not a tank commander in any army in the world that will turn off the engine while "waiting" for combat. The high idle fuel consumption is STILL an issue, as well as it's one MPG actual fuel usage when "moving around". The Aussies, with their usual strait thinking, have a diesel engine in their Abrams. There is considerable gamesmanship for US military weapons systems contracts. Conneticut was the home of Lycoming gas turbine at the time the requirements for a new main tank were being created by TACOM (unmentioned in this Article). Lycoming had influence through "other doors" at the Pentagon from their being the engine supplier for US Army Huey helicopters. My comments as a retired Honeywell Engineer are of course opinion, filtered by discussions with some of the Lycoming Engineers that worked on the Engine at the time, that I had the pleasure to work with after Honeywell bought Lycoming Gas Turbine. LouAz (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC) LouAZ

Added 30 January 2012. There's a spot on the main page requesting a citation for: Since the Iraq War, the US Army began looking at replacing the AGT-1500 turbine engine in the M1 series because of its fuel usage. The turbine engine provides better acceleration, but takes twice as much fuel as a comparable diesel engine. Turbine engines are lighter than diesels, but take up the extra space and weight in a larger fuel tank to produce the same range. This became a problem in the Persian Gulf War as the speed of a tank division was limited to the speed of its refueling trucks.[citation needed]

A proposed citation for this would be a lecture given by Australian Colonel Mick Hyde during 1993. This lecture was given to Australian Army Officers. Col Hyde had been on exchange to the US Army during the period covering the Persian Gulf War. During that war, he was appointed as the Commander of Divisional Engineers for the US 1 Division (aka Big Red 1) that provided the left hook into Iraq. He stated that fuel limitations caused by getting ahead of the fuel tankers was indeed an issue and that at one stage the Division was down to an average of 1 hours fuel. Fuel was allocated to the screening elements, and the rest of the Division went into a hasty laager until the fuel tankers caught up.

Is such a lecture considered an authoritave source / citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style [CMOS] covers reference types such as interviews, personal communications, and papers presented at meetings. Either of the latter is, in my opinion, a good way to classify Col. Hyde's presentation as you've described it. All of these are valid sources. Sources that are not published works are cited parenthetically in-text rather than having a bibliography entry. Following the examples given in CMOS, I'd cite it thus: "...limited to the speed of its refueling trucks. (Colonel Mick Hyde, Australian Army, presentation to Australian Army officers, 1993, reporting findings from Operation Desert Storm [1991].)" — ¾-10 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems cited-able. But it must also be published and accessible per Wikipedia policies (WP:RELIABLESOURCES and WP:VERIFY). If the presentation was made into a report and published/released by the Australian Army or some gov. agency. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Greece purchasing/receiving M1 Abrams tanks?

First off, I did mention about this here before, but it seems that it was removed (and I checked the archive, and didn't see it there).

Anyway, I am starting to see more talk about this, although I do not have a completely reliable source yet (so I won't add it into the article. Here's a few links:

• http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=el&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defencenet.gr%2Fdefence%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D20053%26Itemid%3D47 - Google translation of a Greek language site original page. I don;t know if this is an official source or not, and the 'translation' from Google is kind of crude
• http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=452696 [NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE!] the second one is a forum where I found the first link, along with talk and possible 'hearsay' about it.

From what I gather, these may be to replace the remaining M48A5 MOLF tanks that the Greek Army apparently still has. Have any other eitors heard anything about this (especially from a Reliable(!) source)?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering they're broke, and have delayed major purchases such as the replacement of old Mirages with aircraft like secondhand Eurofighters, it is seriously unlikely to happen, not to mention would be considerably unpopular as a 'needless luxury' or the like. But, maybe there's a major discount going from US stores? Impossible to rule out, but I haven't seen any reliable sources mentioning it. Kyteto (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a newspaper (Kathemerini is one of the few Greek newspapers, which are a reliable source of information) article, which verifies, that the US is offering Greece 400 M1 Abrams

• http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=el&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.kathimerini.gr%2F4dcgi%2F_w_articles_politics_2_04%2F12%2F2011_465041%2F.

Furthermore, the Chief of Staff of the Hellenic Army has confirmed the grant of 400 M1 Abrams

• http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=el&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hellenicdefence.gr%2Feidiseis%2Fe2011%2F111205c.html

I think that we can now add Greece to the article as a user.Elgreco77 (talk) 19:39, 06 December 2011 (UTC)

They will be a user when they actually have the tanks, which they currently don't. (Hohum ^@) 22:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Revolutie49.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Revolutie49.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:5405231858 37b5115646 b.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:5405231858 37b5115646 b.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

M1 series protection levels.

Why someone changes M1A1HA protection levels in data table?

S. Zaloga book M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural have clear table about that, it is newest Zaloga book that includes data on M1 series so that data is most up to date.

[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/35472244.png/][IMG]http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1714/35472244.png[/IMG][/URL]

I made scan from book I have, it is clear that someone is manipulating data mixing old data with new one.

I made proper corrections, hopefully no one will change them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamianPL (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

M1A2SEP numbers in US.Army inventory.

https://www.g8.army.mil/pdf/AMP2012_lq.pdf

This is official US.Army document, it states that US.Army have more than 1174 M1A2SEP's + there are numbers of M1A1SA's currently deployed in active fleet (numbers of older variants and the whole tank fleet are not included).

Why nobody updated informations? I still don't understand why someone base informations on John Pike outdated article and ignore official documents?

I will correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DamianPL (talk • contribs) 11:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

War names in the history section

As per WP guidelines, Wikipedia represents a world wide view on subjects. The war names in the history section are periodically changed back by certain users who better know these conflicts as operation desert storm and operation iraqi freedom. However, these names do not represent a worldwide view on the subject because those are the American names for the American operations in those wars. I understand that at first glance it may make sense to use them given that this Article is about an American tank. However, these names are not as likely to be as recognizable to Non-American readers, they are also not the common name for the conflicts in question (Operation Desert Storm redirects to Gulf War, and Operation Iraqi Freedom redirects to Iraq War). Please leave the current nomenclature in place and do not re-introduce either "operation desert storm" or "operation iraqi freedom". Please read WP:WORLDVIEW for a more in-depth explanation of what I have mentioned here. Vietminh (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Laser signaling system?

Army vehicles used in Iraq have a laser signaling system which can throw moving laser beams and patterns of different colors, these signals are visible far away and can also be used to show the position of troops to airborne units. Yet there is no mention of this system anywhere. Is it still classified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.65.255.1 (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Update from official sources about quantity of M1 Abrams Family of Vehicles in US Army inventory.

http://www.ausa.org/publications/armymagazine/archive/2010/10/Documents/Weapons4_Gound_1010.pdf

This article from 2010 says us that US Army have 8,325 M1 FoV's.

So this means:

US.Army/ARNG alone have ~8,325 M1 tanks in inventory as official statements say + ~400 M1 tanks in USMC inventory.

This gives 8,725 M1 FoV's - 44 M104's and 239 ABV's (Specilized variants, numbers based on official sources) gives 8,442 M1 tanks in US.Army/ARNG/USMC inventory. M88 FoV's are based on M48 and M60 tanks, not on M1 series.

This means approx 2,000+ in active fleet and approx 6,442 in reserve fleet as other provided by me sources claims.

So:

USA: 8,725. Australia: 59 (surplus from US stocks). Iraq: 140 (surplus from US stocks). Egypt: 1,130 (Original 1005 and recently ordered additional 125 tanks). Saudi Arabia: 373 (58 surplus from US stocks). Kuwait: 218.

So US orignally manufactured for it's armed forces: 8,982 (+ unknown numbers of completely lost vehicles, so probably it was around 9,000+ M1 FoV's). And overall production ended with 10,645 M1 FoV's.

All of these are based on all official sources and books about M1 Abrams tank.

I upgraded numbers, moderators please add all PDF's I provided as official sources.

DamianPL —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC).

DM11

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/28611/?SID=872b44486ffef731e91fa177fc6de753

Are USMC-only rounds noteworthy here? Hcobb (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Downgrade"

Is there really a source stating that removing or replacing the DU in the armour is a downgrade? I've heard that there are suitable / equivalent but inert replacements such as those used in the Leopard 2's armour mix.--Senor Freebie (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are sources, pure serial numbers on turret right side are saying us what tank have DU in armor and what tank do not have.

In US we have such serial numbers, xxxx (where x are digits) and, if there is no letter then this tank have BRL-1 or BRL-2 armor (Burlington armor variants made in US), if there are digits and letter U (Uranium), for example 4509U, then this tank have DU in armor, some tanks have M (Modernized?) instead of U, but they also have DU in armor as far as I could dig out from people very close to the whole stuff. All Muslim countries using M1 tanks have E letter with serial number, so it seems that E means Export as it was seen on Egyptian, Iraqi, Saudi and Kuwaiti tanks. Australian tanks have A letter with serial number, it probably means that armor package is custom made for Australia, as for Leopard 2, there are no export armor package for these tanks, customer can even get better armor package than for example German army is using in their tanks.--DamianPL (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your say so (interesting though it may be) is not a usable WP:SOURCE. (Hohum ^@) 22:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Armor specifications

We don't seriously plan on adding enthusiastic estimates on the armor effectiveness on a still classified AFV are we? Please remove it, it looks silly and unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's cited. We can always document cited stuff. For example, the RQ-170 isn't going to declassified anytime soon. Until it is, we can still report observations by experts. Marcus Qwertyus 06:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

LCAC

Under the strategic mobility section i think it would be a good idea to add the LCAC as a means of transport, thoughts? Common practice, though only for the USMC still i think it's noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spensah.v2 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)