Talk:M1 Abrams

Abrams Armour

The main text referring to the armor says: "giving an estimated maximum (frontal turret) 1,320–1,620 millimetres (52–64 in) of RHAe versus HEAT (and other chemical energy rounds) and 940–960 mm (37–38 in) versus kinetic energy penetrators.[43]" So the source for this is the: "R.P. Hunnicutt, Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank" I have finally managed to get my hands on the book, and it makes for a very interesting reading, so far I haven't however encountered anything stating these estimates, at the ending sections "VEHICLE DATA SHEETS" on page 293 it lists the vehicles talked about in the book all it says for any of the Abrams prototypes or later versions armor is and I quote: "ARMOR Turret: Welded assembly of rolled homogeneous steel armor with special armor arrays in the frontal area Hull: Welded assembly of rolled homogeneous steel armor with special armor arrays in the frontal area and side skirts protecting the upper half of the suspension system" with this in mind and also the fact that I haven't yet read trough the whole book, I would like someone to point me to a page or at least pages or section where these estimates about the armor are presented i.e. the: "giving an estimated maximum (frontal turret) 1,320–1,620 millimetres (52–64 in) of RHAe versus HEAT (and other chemical energy rounds) and 940–960 mm (37–38 in) versus kinetic energy perpetrators.[43]" Thank you in advance, I'm just an tank enthusiast/tank nut requiring some help on this issue especially if in the info box of this article stands: "Armor Chobham, RH armor, depleted uranium strike plates, Kevlar mesh[citation needed]

   M1: Hull & turret – 350 mm vs APFSDS, 700 mm vs HEAT[5][nb 1]
   M1A1: Hull & turret – 600 mm vs APFSDS, 700 mm vs HEAT[6]
   M1A1HA: Hull – 600 mm vs APFSDS, 700 mm vs HEAT, Turret – 800 mm vs APFSDS, 1,300  mm vs HEAT[6][7][nb 2]
   M1A2: Hull (turret) – 600 (780 mm) mm vs APFSDS, 800 mm (1,060 mm) vs HEAT[5][not in citation given]" Which directly contradicts with the info about the armor in the main text. 

So please can someone elaborate on these contradictions at least and provide me with directions (page, section/section's) in the "R.P. Hunnicutt, Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank" where these estimates can be found. Also when I read trough the whole book I will provide such info or the fact that there is no such estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.250.101.140 (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

For Christ sake stop thinking people know how much armor it has. They don't. It's a guarded government secret - same with all modern armor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Contradictions regarding protection

In the article, it mentions the strength of the armor of the Abrams. It makes the first mention in the infobox by listing the M1 Abrams and its variants. The numbers for the RHA equivalence vs APFSDS are given as: 350 mm, 600, 800 and 780 for the M1, M1A1, M1A1HA, and M1A2 respectively. However, there is also this passage in the article in section 2.1.4:

The Abrams is protected by armor based on the British-designed Chobham armor, a further development of the British 'Burlington' armor. Chobham is a composite armor formed by spacing multiple layers of various alloys of steel, ceramics, plastic composites, and kevlar, giving an estimated maximum (frontal turret) 1,320–1,620 millimetres (52–64 in) of RHAe versus HEAT (and other chemical energy rounds) and 940–960 mm (37–38 in) versus kinetic energy penetrators.[45]

So which one provides the correct statistic? I don't have access to all the citations so I can't judge for myself. On another note, the RHA equivalence for the M1 Abrams is 350 mm vs. APFSDS and 700 vs. HEAT. However, the footnote it cited numbers it as 470 mm vs. APFSDS and 650 vs. HEAT. I'm aware it's a Soviet estimation, but what about that other citation? Khazar (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/index.html

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsrussia-t90s-battle-tank-peruvian-army

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A glaring omission

I came to Wikipedia to learn more about the M1A1 Abrams tank, and while I succeeded in that, I noticed a glaring omission. Nowhere in the article can I find any mention of how much these tanks COST. There are mentions of how much is being spent on keeping the Lima plant of General Dynamics Land Systems open, which is an issue that has been discussed in the U.S.A. in the past year or so, but there's no mention of what a brand new, right-off-the-assembly-line M1A1 cost when they were first being made. I'm sure that there are people who know that sort of thing. II hope that one of them adds that info to a future version of this article.

- G.N. Papadatos

     New York City, U.S.A.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.178.2 (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC) 

How about the "Unit cost" part of the infobox? (Hohum ^@) 18:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RECTIFIED?

>>The subsequent insurgency exposed the tanks' vulnerability to rocket-propelled grenades and mines. These problems were partially rectified with the TUSK modification. The Marine Corps sent a company of M1A1 Abrams to Afghanistan in late 2010.<<

Seriously who writes this shit?