Talk:M1 Abrams

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)

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 Qwertyuiop 06:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is just dumb. We might as well put up ponies while we are at it, and citations don't make a statement true. Nothing is declassified and therefor nothing is known. Wiki military section is just pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It needs removed, we don't need amateurish guesses based on third party estimates who have little or no merit or basis. Tank specifications on modern vehicles are closely guarded secrets of state, and theses are certainly some of the lowest estimates i've ever seen for the M1 period. It's nothing but a childish attempt to give an answer when we don't have one.

Tagged "Mesh"

I have tagged instances of descriptions of depleted uranium armor components as "mesh" with "citation needed" notations. To the best of my knowledge (and I have been researching this matter for thirteen years), the exact form of the DU components are a military secret, and no credible source has described them as forming "mesh" or "rods" or any other particular form. The citation given for one such entry is a FAS article which does not describe the component as a "mesh".

I chased down the exact revision of this article in which the "mesh" description was added (22:44, 26 December 2005, by 12.202.178.221) and in which the "rods" description was added (07:12, 16 March 2004, by 216.86.90.170). In neither case was any source or reasoning given for the description, nor are the editors available for questioning.

If there is a credible source for any claims of the DU armor component having any particular form, it should be cited. If none are forthcoming, I will replace all references to "mesh" with "component". If a credible source appears which describes the component's form, the article can be revised again to reflect this.

TTK (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Joint Systems Manufacturing Center.

It seems that Joint Systems Manufacturing Center's tank production line won't be closed in 2014 to 2016/2017.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/press/SASC.NDAA.052412.pdf

It is planned to sustain limited tanks production through 2014 when production line was planned to be closed, and in 2015 there is planned major contract with unspecified foreing user of M1 tanks, to upgrade them.

While another big modernization program for US Armed Forces is planned for 2016/2017.

http://www.ausa.org/news/2012/Documents/ILWBreakfast_LTGLennoxPresentation.pdf http://www.bctmod.army.mil/news/pdf/Army%20Modernization%20Plan%202012.pdf

DamianPL (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Royal Moroccan Army's M1A1

the deals: - 27 april 2011: the congress received the request for an EDA of M1 Abrams to the Royal Moroccan Army. Source:

The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco has requested a possible enhancement and refurbishment of 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks, provided as part of a grant Excess Defense Article (EDA) transfer notified to Congress on 27 April 2011

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2012/Morocco_12-28.pdf

- 18 June 2012: The congress was notified to the enhancement and modification, etc. etc. to the same Abrams sold by EDA the 27 April 2011. Source:

WASHINGTON, June 18, 2012 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress today of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco for enhancement and refurbishment of 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks and associated parts, equipment, logistical support and training for an estimated cost of $1.015 billion.

It is an official document, and it's wrote that the M1's deal was close in 2011, and the 2012 deal is for refurbishment and modifications.

So it is not a potential customer. IT IS a Customer since 2011...

Not a user until the tanks are delivered. As of now, it is a possible user, as per the source you provided: "The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress today of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco for enhancement and refurbishment of 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks..."

When there is news of the Royal Moroccan army taking delivery of the tanks, then we can consider them an operator of the tank.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

M1A2 to South Korea K2A2

I was under the impression that the ROK was to receive a version, K2A2 Black Panther, to upgrade their armor forces. 74.119.167.204 (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not an M1 Abrams. Try K2 Black Panther. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)