Talk:M1 Abrams

The edit by Muchenhaeser suggest that Sweden has endorsed or is planning to endorse the Abrams, when in fact the Leopard 2 was found superior. Major rephrasing or removal shortly... europrobe 08:21, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

I think info about the Saudis upgrading their fleet upgraded to M1A2S standard should be added.

" Also tested by Sweden and a number of other nations " was intended to be the start of listing some of the nations that have trialed it, its not a 'endorsement' of it any more then other nations that have done so. As far as their rejection goes, they actually found them quite similair, but the failure of the US to deliver ordered weapons in WWII was a factor. The idea being, that when they most needed the weapons they were not delivered (in this case the US was worried about aircraft in question being captured). Furthermore, the the Swedish leopard 2 differs anyway, as among other refinements, it has a native made armor package. Muchenhaeser 19:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Swedish Leo has been upgraded in several areas, including armour and C2S, but those upgrades would probably have been considered for the Abrams as well. All in all - while similar - the Leo 2 was found superior, and the phrasing of your last edit could be misunderstood for something else (especially since Sweden was listed under "export" and "also used by"). Your present phrasing is better, IMO. europrobe 08:41, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

If equipped with CMC's the operational cost of a M1 unit is about twice as high as that of a Leopard 2 unit. That alone scares off most prospective buyers. USA perforated armour technology is markedly inferior to that of the Germans, the world leaders in this field - so they have no alternative solution to offer. The only non-client states buying M1's have been Saudi-Arabia (if you would qualify it as such) which was denied Leopard 2's and Australia that wanted its MBT's optimized for peace missions and hopes to reduce cost by pampering and isolating the CMC's using the space gained by leaving out all the DU-modules! Which means the frontal armour can be penetrated by even a DM 23 round...

MWAK--84.27.81.59 11:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To both of you- the leo was not found superior (well to the leclerc it was), just that the m1 was more expensive to operate. The difference in armor wasn't important as they replaced it on the leo anyway. Im not sure how perforated armor performs in comparison to other types, but the swedish package is generally regarded as superior to the leo's. Also mwak, the a2 has sold to other countries besides aussie's and saudi arabia; as far as that goes selling to other euros isn't much more of a 'qualifying'.

As for my early point, sweden said Concern over the availability of spare parts and additional tanks in the event of a conflict probably influenced the decision too. In the late 1930's Sweden had ordered fighter aircraft from the United States, aircraft that were not delivered because of the start of hostilities in Europe. Or in other words, when they were needed the most, the US government decided not to deliver the planes....

I love the leo 2 and the 122 both and I actually agree'd with swe choice, but your reasons for why they chose it are fos, save the bit about cost. Muchenhaeser 06:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I admit to having made a more general point: but is it so inconceivable the pretended indigenous Swedish armour system is in reality largely of German origin? And I would hope we aren't ...But perhaps I'm an incurable romantic...However your point about the uncertainty of US-backup in an emergency is a very valid one. One of the reasons the Dutch at the time rejected the M1, was that we were flatly refused a guaranteed share of the materiel reserve in case of war. --MWAK 13:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello, I am a newbie not knowing how to implement a picture so I put it here and you can place it correctly into the article with the right size at the right spot. It was taken in Falouja at Nov. 2004: <img src="http://img24.exs.cx/img24/4506/abrams2vt.jpg" width="550" height="348" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" />

Did you take that picture or get permission from the photographer to include the picture in Wikipedia? --Carnildo 03:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I got that picture from the German Wiki site: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Abrams_Ex.jpg and here is the article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams and it shows that the Abrams is in fact vulnerable. I found pictures of about 58 different M1's, all totally destroyed. So this tank has definitely lost it's myth of being invincible.

FYI: When the M1 blows it blast panels to eject ammo it totally engulfs the tank charing it and blacking it.

-Weps

The picture from the german wiki has been photoshoped, an rather poorly I might add. I would also point out that pictures of destroyed M1's are most likely the work of the US Air Force. When an armored vehicle is disabled either by enemy fire of from a mechanical malfunction and the area is too dangerous to send in a recovery team in for it, the vehicle is destroyed to prevent it from bieng looted. TDC 17:17, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint, the faked picture has been removed now from the article. Nevertheless it is not true that no Abrams ever has been destroyed by other tanks. As far as I know there are only two main battle tanks undefeated: The German Leopard 2 and the Japanese Type 90. At least there are no such pictures. The Japanese and the German tank look quite similar to each other. Therefore the Type 90 is sometimes called the big brother of the Leopard 2: http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/jp_type90.htm

When has an Abrams been destroyed by another tank? --Carnildo 19:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here: http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-2-04/fratricide-2.htm, it took just a simple 25mm Bushmaster cannon http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/m242.htm, firing eight AP-DU rounds to knock out an Abrams. USER

The M1A1 was not knocked out. The engine was destroyed, that turret and basket remained intact. Also I might point out a 25mm DU round is not simple, it's very large and very deadly. This is from the offical report by the DOD and DOA. -Weps

---

I'm quoting Defense Update here:

"the new Russian Kornet ATGW, but further examination revealed that the damage was from a 25mm Bushmaster cannon, firing eight AP-DU rounds into the rear engine compartment penetrating the engine grills. The same report mentioned another M1A2 Abrams damaged by unidentified source, possibly another US tank firing a 120mm round"

It states that an M3 fired several APDS rounds into the engine grill of an M1, disabling the tank. That means the eninge can't run so the tracks can't turm, so the tank is disabled, not destroyed.

--Weps

---

What a ridiculous assertion. Several 25mm SABO rounds fired from an M3 fired into the engine compartment of a Leo 2 or Type 90 would've disabled them as well. SABO rounds aren't quite "simple", they're quite efficient. Virgil61 13:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The class comparison seems really unnecessary. It requires a bit of subjectivity that should be minimized in an encyclopedia or an reference.

"There are not many other modern tanks in the Abrams's class; the Leopard II from Germany, the LeClerc from France, the Challenger from the UK, the Type 1990 from Japan and the Merkava from Israel are the only ones that come immediately to mind. The Russian T90 isn't in the same class, neither is the Chinese Type 1998."

If we wish for the reader to realize this, we should allow them to see the facts themselves and draw that conclusion. We should not make that conclusion for them while not giving them any significant data to support that.

Perhaps we should say,

"In comparison, [insert tank 1 and data from tank 1], [insert tank 2 and data from tank 2]... "

Also, "...are the only ones that come immediately to mind" seems very first person. In general, those sentences are unnecessary and only detracts from the rest of article's high quality and objectivity.

---

It seems an Abrams has been destroyed in combat on Apr 10th. look here: [1]

---

I'm confused. Recent news reports on American television made much of the fact that during a battle near Nasariyah, I beleive, the first M1A1 ever was taken out by enemy fire. Two were lost with no casualties. This article claims 18 were lost in the last Gulf War. Which is it? Rmhermen 05:38 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Rmhermen, I don't know the exact details, but there were considered to be zero combat losses of the M1 caused by hostile fire in the last war. There were 9 tanks destroyed, 9 tanks damaged but later repaired. I believe the causes of all those losses were either land mines or friendly fire. In the current war, there have definitely been some M1 loses due to hostile fire. Here [2] was a "golden bullet" that took out a tank, but the Kornet [3] seems to be the main cause of losses. I haven't heard of losing any M-1s to T-72s yet. -º¡º

That Golden Bullet didn't take out the M1, it penetrated it's skirt armor.

--Weps

Do not confuse a picture of a destroyed M1 with destruction by enemy fire. The general procedure for handling an incapacitated M1 MBT is usualy to destroy it, so it cannot be looted or stripped by an enemy. This is most often done with an airstrike. TDC 16:15, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

magic bullet

anyone knowledgeable on the topic of Abrams tanks will find this news item [4] 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.

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.

two deaths

another important article from the army times. [5] 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

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}

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

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)

From the Asad Babil 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). 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). 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. User:UDoWs

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: [6]

Sherman vs Abrams

One of my friends seems to think that a WW2 Sherman tank would be superior to an M1 Abrams tank, which I know is vastly untrue...

Could someone give me some perspective on how modern tanks and those from WW2/1 compare, and how different they really are?

We can try...

WW1 tanks were very slow; they normally moved at a walking pace. They had poor armour merely protecting against bullets. Only their guns were a bit better. Guns had been around for some while after all!

First mobility was improved. In the late twenties already Christie made tanks that were as fast as present-day tanks. During WW2 a gun-armour race took place. At the end of that war, tanks had reached about their present size and weight. The IS-3 had a 122 mm gun - the Abrams today has a 120 mm calibre - and roughly about 300 mm armour equivalence, which wasn't about to be vastly improved soon.

After the war the really important changes were in the field of munitions, night vision, stabilization and fire-control. A gunner in a moving Abrams should be able to hit a target first shot at two miles distance - at night. That's very different from a Sherman that didn't even have a real rangefinder. In the last 30 years however armour has again started to improve with the arrival of neoceramic composites and the use of tungsten and uranium. The Abrams is about three times better protected than the IS-3 against KE-rounds and six times against HEAT-rounds (you may double those figures against the Sherman). Improvement in penetrating power has been comparable.

So modern tanks are visibly superior to the charmingly primitive WW1 tanks. They look the same as late WW2 tanks, but have hidden powers. Also invisible is the price tag: for one Abrams you could have bought fifty Shermans. Modern tanks are not as nearly as efficient as they are effective...

MWAK--84.27.81.59 14:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

World War I tanks were designed to counter the two things that made trench warfare possible: barbed wire and machine guns. They were usually also designed to be able to cross trenches, but this was not always the case. No attempt was made to protect against a direct hit by artillery, for several reasons:

1) Direct-fire artillery was uncommon, so the simple act of moving was sufficient to protect against any but chance hits. 2) Armor sufficient to protect against a direct hit would have overloaded the engines and transmissions of the time.

Early World War II tanks came in an incredible variety of forms, to fill every available combat role and then some. Armor was generally fairly light, as accurate, portable cannon also tended to be low-power. Over the course of the war, the general trend was towards heavier, more accurate guns and thicker armor. By the end of the war, tanks tended to come in three varieties: a fast, lightly armored tank for scouting, a slow-to-medium speed tank with very thick armor and a big gun, and specialist tanks, which used a tank's armor and mobility to get a special-purpose weapon to where it was needed.

After WWII, light tanks were usually replaced with armored cars, and tank armor and guns got heavier, with various techniques such as spaced armor, ceramics, and shaped-charge warheads so you could get the equivalent of a meter's thickness of armor without actually having to carry that much steel, and a shell that could punch through it while still being light enough for a single person to lift in the confines of a tank turret. --Carnildo 19:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's see It took 6 Shermans to destroy a Tiger I Now we have a better armoured and better equiped modern tank it may take 16 Shermans to destroy a M1 Dudtz 8/23/05 4:37 PM EST

If the Sherman could touch it at all. The reason it took six Sherman tanks to destroy a single Tiger is that you used up five of them distracting the Tiger, while the sixth snuck around to get a shot at the side or rear. Armor's gotten better since then, so I don't know if a side or rear shot could penetrate. Barring a miracle that lets you get in a belly shot, best you could hope for is to wreck the tracks, leaving the Abrams a sitting duck for heavy artillery. --Carnildo 21:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It would probably take 3 or more shots from a Sherman and that might only damage it I would try do damage the M1's gun then you fire away Dudtz 8/24/05 2:01 PM EST

It's a silly debate.

• If the crew of the Abrams were asleep then it would take 1 Sherman, 1 shot to the rear to knock it out (a mobility kill rather than a catastrophic kill).
• If the Abrams was sitting in the middle of a perfectly flat plain - it would pick the Shermans off one by one at maximum range (far outside the range the Sherman tanks could hope to hit it) as they approached, until it ran out of main gun ammo. Then it would proceed to outrun the remaining Shermans until it ran out of fuel (which would be several hours after all the Shermans had run out of fuel or broken down).

To decide how many Shermans it would take, you have to make all kind of assumptions about what the terrain is like, how stupid the M1 crew are (i.e. why sit still waiting for the Shermans when you can run rings round them).

You might as well ask how long is a piece of string.

Megapixie 07:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Run rings arround them? the Sherman is quite fast dont waste your money on a Sherman Get a VAB with an Anti tank rocket launcher Dudtz 8/25/05 1:14 PM EST

---

I shall finish this.

Giving the latest variant of the M1 family the M1A2 SEP vs. the M4A2E8.

M1A2 SEP

Pro's:

Thermal Imaging Sight w/ Second Generation FLIR State-of-the-art Fire Control System Dual Redundant Data (MILSTD 1553D) and Utility Bus Architecture Embedded Battle Command Commanders Idepenant Thermal Viewer with BLOCK III FLIR Intervehicular Information System Tank Management System Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit (Keeps all electronics running when the engine off) Chobam Composite Armor with Depleted Uramium mesh Tank Urban Survival Kit

Top Speed (Governed): 45 mph

Ammo: M829E3 APFSDS-T, M830A2 HEAT-T, M10128 Canister, and M943 STAFF

Engine: 1500 HP Honeywell-Lycoming AGT Multi-fuel Turbine

Weight: 70 tons

Range: 275 miles

Weapons:

Main Gun: M256 120mm Reinmettal Smoothbore

Secondary: M2 .50cal and M240B 7.62mm

Coax: M240D 7.62mm

Cons: Prone to RPG attacks.

Sherman

Pro's

High Velocity 76mm

Engine:400HP,radial,R975,Wright- Continental

Weapoms:

Main Gun: HV 76mm (Modified French Howitzer)

Secondary:

M2 .50cal

M1919A4 .30cal

Weight: 30 tons

Range:100 miles

Speed:24 mph

The battle beings in a city (to give the small more agile Sherman an advantage).

Sherman spots the M1 first and first a 76mm at is rear, the round bounces off the RPG grate armor (mined you an RPG-7v's warhead is 85mm's).

The M1 quickly swivle's to fire and the Sherman back down an ally, quickly making a get away.

The M1 following on a parrael road smashes through a bvbuilding and pins the Sherman to a wall, the Sherman turret turns and fires it's M1919A4 coax at the M1's CITV, destroying it. The M1 fring back with it's M240D coax taking the M2 off the Sherman's pintle mount. The M1 backs up and the Sherman makes a dash for it.

As she speeds down the ally the M1 aims and fires a M829E3 APFSDS-T, hitting the Sherman with such force it tips the Sherman over and then the Sherman's ammo immediatly cooks-off killing eveyone inside and blowing-off of whats left of the turret.

The M1A2 heads back the it's desigated AO and continue's it's recon.

--Weps

The RPG-7 is a HEAT round,the sherman can fire both AP and heat rounds,The sherman crew would hit the ammo stowage box with a HEAT round and then use an AP round on the engine Dudtz 1/5/06 6:02 PM EST

This is insane.

1. The M1 is much more agile than the Sherman
   • Sherman has 12.5 hp / ton - M1 has ~ 25 hp /ton.
   • M1 has a higher top speed 75 km/h road versus ~ 40 km/h for the Sherman
   • M1 has far far far far better suspension, and can travel cross country much faster.
   • M1 has far greater range.
   • M1 has better MTBF - the Sherman will breakdown long before the M1.
2. The M1 can fire on the move. You can fire a WWII era Sherman on the move - you just won't hit anything.
3. M1 can penetrate the Sherman at any angle, at any range it can hit (i.e. out to circa 4000 meters). The Sherman might be able to penetrate the side and rear armour of the M1 at point blank range.
4. M1 fire control is better, it can make first round kills at 4000 m - the Sherman would have a tiny chance of hitting at that range.
5. M1 command and control is far better. The command can slave the gunner to his sight, can automatically scan for targets, etc.
6. The M1 can fight at night. The Sherman cannot.
7. The M1 can survive being hit. The Sherman will most likely catch fire.

In short the M1 is the product of 30 years of lessons in how to design and build tanks over the Sherman. It's like comparing a Sopwith Camel and a P-51 Mustang. Basically if the crew of the M1 were all drunk on overproof rum, and had only done a days training, and only had one round of ammunition - then the Sherman might stand a fighting chance.

Look at how the Iraqi T-55s did against the M1 in the Gulf Wars ? The T-55 is a more capable Tank than the Sherman - and it didn't stand a chance.

I rest my case. Megapixie 00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The T-55/Type 59s lost because of unskilled tank crews and cheap ammo. Dudtz 1/6/06 7:15 PM EST

Could we please leave this? The sherman couldnt win against a M1. The specific series of events that would allow it to win are far too unlikely, and are pretty much impossible if the m1's crew have anything over a Iq score of 3

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)

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

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.

http://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 know 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

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.

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.

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)

• 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

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[7] with respectable-looking tables of 'Estimated Armor Protection Levels'. But the original source for these values is a wargamers' site,[8] 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.

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)

If I recall, I did travel back in time to 1781 with a fully trained U.S. Army Rangers M1A2 Abrams MBT crew with 200 125mm rounds and killed Cornwallis at the Battle of Yorktown, surprising the British so much they shit their pants, and in turn that shit clogged the M1's engine and we all died. Yep. Good times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.88.125 (talk • contribs)

Erm... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.107.202 (talk • contribs)