Talk:M1 Abrams

Split...?

This article may be getting too lengthy, per Wikipedia:Article size and may need some content spun off. Thoughts? - ^theWOLFchild 13:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Part of the article was effectively split off to History of the M1 Abrams several years ago. Maybe more content needs to be moved there or just summarized better. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The Gulf War, Iraq War, Iraqi Army service, War in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia sections could be shifted over to History of the M1 Abrams. The Upgrades and Future Plans sections could be combined. -Ramlaen (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Article size

This article is 141kB which, according to WP:TOOBIG, is, well... too big. Further to that however, through a recent edit, I noticed that the "History" section of this page is 80kB alone. Yet the entire History of the M1 Abrams page is half that size at 41kB. That seems kinda backwards, no? Perhaps the "History" section here should be limited to a brief summary and the majority it's content moved the "History of" article, where it arguably belongs. That would also help solve the size problem of this page. This was also suggested above, earlier this past summer. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? - wolf 16:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps keeping the header and removing the rest of the History section, from Development on, since it is effectively a duplicate of the "History of" article. I would do it myself but I don't want to arbitrarily make such a dramatic change without feedback. - Ramlaen (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Spelling

Should the article be tagged to use American English spelling, given that it is about an American tank? Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 13:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

M1A3

Can we get rid of all references to the "M1A3"? It does not exist, nor are there any existing plans to call any future version the "M1A3". The current upgrade program is called the M1A2(SEPv3) and will continue throughout the next six years. No subsequent program has been announced. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2019/02/22/army_backstops_futuristic_ngcv_program_with_prudent_armor_upgrades_114205.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.85.186.6 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

All the mentions of M1A3 in the article use sources which say M1A3 in them. (Hohum ^@) 17:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

None of which cite any Department of Defense source as using M1A3 as a designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.85.172.6 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead section alert

I've extended the lead section of this article and I think the lead section alert should be removed. Xer0 onPC (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I just removed that tag, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image replacement

@Thewolfchild: I don’t understand why the M1 Abrams TUSK image is appropriate for display as it is a prototype vehicle. The TUSK configuration seen in the picture was never put into service and the picture is simply out of place as it is a transparent image in a stark white unreal background. This is in contrast to every outher tank into box image which has a photograph of a tank in a real life scenario. The image serves little descriptive purpose as it is a prototype upgrade package and resembles none of the thousands of M1 Abrams built and put into service without said prototype upgrade package, making it entirely ineffectual at describing and being inaccurate to describe the M1 Abrams tank series as a whole. The M1A1 USMC image should replace it as it serves to describe the tank in far greater capacity. Xer0 onPC (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox image to the Mounted Soldier System (MSS).jpg that was already present in the article. The previous abrams-transparent.png image has replaced it in its place. I think this is a suitable compromise as it offers a modern Abrams variant while also being a production vehicle as well as being a real life photograph. Xer0 onPC (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

>>M1A2S (Saudi Package): Saudi Arabian variant upgrade of the M1A2 based on M1A2 SEP, with some features, such as depleted uranium armor, believed to be missing (442 M1A2s upgraded to M1A2S).[127][128]<<

Who believes this, and what is that belief based on? If you can't explain that, why not just say the use of DU can neither be confirmed nor denied? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.241.72.9 (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

M1 fielding to Europe.

The first M1's were fielded to the 3rd Armored Division in Europe, specifically 3rd Battalion 33rd Armor. Bravo Company was the first part of the battalion to receive and be trained on the M1. Bravo Company was commanded by Captain George Feagans.66.76.220.184 (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Improper citation of dsca document (online document)

The document states that the tanks armor is FMA export, but no where does it state what that actually is. So it is not supported to say excludes DU. That is begging the question as to whether some export tanks and their armor packages do not have DU. Assume instead that you don't know that, and you see the cited government document doesn't clarify either way. It could be that an export tank and its armor package simply uses a different form of armor that might include DU in some way.