Talk:M1 Abrams
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M1 Abrams article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 270 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M1 Abrams article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 270 days ![]() |
Weight
The summary and the sidebar seem to give conflicting information as to the weight. 71.92.133.226 (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Tank desant?
Not sure why this is even mentioned. I was an M1A1 tanker for 3 years and not once did we ever operate this way, not once did we even train for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:103:B200:F5BA:A025:B93:5C3 (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- The article should include capabilities of the tank even if they aren't normally utilised. Also, see right: (Hohum @) 18:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Why did somebody revert my edit?
I made an edit recently to a sentence in this article which didn't make sense before my edit and wasn't correct, and did make sense and was correct afterwards. Somebody reverted to the nonsensical version. It reads that DEVELOPMENT of the M1A3 is under way, and yet DEVELOPMENT is due to start in 2020. This is plainly an error. Development is under way then DEPLOYMENT is due to start in 2020 is both more sensible and reflects reality. This looks like somebody treating the article as if it's their personal property and not liking it when sombody corrects their errors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Portobello Prince (talk • contribs)
Atlantic Resolve
The M1 Abrams is now back in Europe. [1]. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Operators
Islamic State has many Abrams tanks, why this state is not mentioned in operators section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.128.46 (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources to back up your claim? In addition, it seems that the operators contain recognized states (Taiwan excluded) that have purchased the tanks. The Islamic State fails those requirements.Dictonary1 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- In article Military equipment of ISIL Abrams is mentioned, with source.
"it seems that the operators contain recognized states" It would be completely ridicoulus, in article T-90 in section Current operators FSA terrorist group is mentioned as an operator in the same way as states and other group Tahrir al Sham that captured one tank is mentioned in text about Syria's T-90 tanks. author of the first comment xD2A00:23C4:3184:AD00:A4B6:DA90:AD23:A372 (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class military land vehicles articles
- Military land vehicles task force articles
- C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- C-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles