Jump to content

Talk:M1 Abrams/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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)

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. The "source" cited is T-72URAL vs Abrhams, one of the most bias and anti-M1 works out there, like hell it should stay up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk)

Zaloga is a reliable source. You have no consensus to remove cited material. (Hohum @) 12:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In 8 months only one person opposed its removal, and the source is not reliable; have you even read the book? Nothing in it is sourced and his reference was the the M1 tank, not the M1A1, M1A2, or the M1A2 SEP which comprise the majority of the Us inventory. No, his reference was to the much older version. Think of it logically, under what authority would he have to dismantle a state secret, and explain it in detail? It was nothing more than a guess based on the performance of the weapons fired against it. It devotes an entire two pages to explaining why he wasn't full of crap, and is a third party reference and not a primary source.

Why not add from the blogs who display equal incompetence, I can think of just as many "credible" sources from other people who did not work for the government, and have never ridden or been around such a tank. He looked at the damage and used the also estimated properties of the weapons fired against it and used a whopping three images to base his guessed upon. You should read the book before trying to claim it was a creditable source, it was a collection of guess works based on older models by a third party from a person who has dedicated his career to glorifying Soviet armor, properties in contradiction to wikis stance on primary sources and properly cited material. Amy1904 (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Amy

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)

Is the "video games" section a must?

Is the "video games" section a must? Ostensibly, it was added by another editor for the purpose of linking an orphaned article, but I can see this rapidly getting out of control as IP's fill up the section with increasingly trivial appearances of the tank in every video game under the sun. Could this possibly be the topic for a new article - "M1 Abrams in popular culture" - or something? Plus, that could cover things like movies appearances and TV shows, too.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No, just the usual crappy listcruft. Do any of these have any relevance to the Abrams, rather than the Abrams having relevance to them? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'll remove it. Rklawton (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Personaly the main picture seems a bit fake and like a toy I have in my basement are you shure this is a REAL M1? IT really does remind me of a toy that i used to have when i was a kid which is in my basement...-anymynous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.192.93 (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at the full resolution, but we really ought to have a pic of the tank out in the real world around people or other items of known size. Hcobb (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Production 1979 - present ?? Sure?

Produced: 1979–present Number built 9,000+ Variants See variants

I ask because I saw an very interesting documentation about restoring the old M1 Abrams. The Docu was not absolutely new but also not "old", I think between 2007 and 2010. It is a big factory which takes out every part of the M1 Abrams and repairs or replace it with new parts, but the replacing became increasingly difficult in the last years since many components for the M1 Abrams are no more in production. This was an example for the turret,

they take the turret off, which looks quite bad (from grafitti to smaller fighting optical damages, maybe from shooting with an assault rifle on the Abrams. However the built very much parts (the M1 Abrams has I think like the later World War 2 German Tanks a quite complicated mechanic. Which is good in the battlefield, but bad for the motor mechanic and others. The turret for example they found a solution: they take the naked turret and put it into a room and than the start to "shoot" the turret with thousands of small hard metallic pellets.

The pellets are not hard enough to damage the turret, but after some hours the whole dirty turret looks like new, just the (US Army) colour is away, and I think the spray the turret before the door opens, because there comes out an good looking, shiny full grey (grey-metallic?) turret. I thought to me, that you better should not repeat this more than once, because there is a small lose of material of course. But they are building already now far beyond 100 parts by hand since you can't buy them and no company will start production for such stuff which is worth maybe only a few hundred dollars while they can produce anti-tank, anti-air, anti-xyz misilles worth over 1 million US-$.

I Think they said that the most M1 Abrams the US Army became was before Desert Shield, in the mid 80's, and that the factory becomes money from the military budget to keep the M1 Abrams running as long as possible. The "latest" models were from early 90's I thought and now or soon have to get their first check in this factory... he said a number, in piece 15 a week but now in "war times" they get 30 a week. I thought he means the iraq war with "war" since the M1 is quite rare in the mountainous areas of afghanistan.

Maybe someone even saw the documentary, it is available on yo...ube... I saw it in English with german subtitles, but you can remove the subtitles and for sure you find it 100% English. These guys are really smart, every day there is another problem since every tank is different and has different problems, they should get paid twice as much for what they are doing. Without them the US Army would already have to begin producing a new main battle tank from 2020 or earlier on with costs of hundred billions for the whole programm, or even over 1 trillion if you built thousands of them, and the US military, no matter if Army, Marines or or... the US military would need I think at least 7,500 - 10,000.

Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

120 percent decrease in heat signature

The article's current text claims that the under-development diesel engine will reduce the tank's heat signature by 120%. That means with the diesel engine, the tank will suck heat out of its environment at a rate one of fifth the rate the current version emits heat. Such a thing is thermodynamically impossible, at least if it's going to keep it up for any sustained period. Nonetheless, a source is cited, and the source does really say that. Can we find a better source, with either a more plausible number or a clearer explanation? 207.161.219.24 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed it too; I checked the reference too, and it is there like you said. This is clearly wrong ... when something is reduced by 100%, it becomes 0. I'd say just delete this paragraph and the cite since the article would be better off without it. Replacing with something else would be better still, but IMO the deletion does not need to wait on finding a replacement.
Dr Smith (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep it, and the ref, but lose the 120%. We can trust an innumerate journo to correctly recite a press release that there is a low-heat diesel engine being planned. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Abrams Speed

currently, the article's info-box states that the top road speed is 35 mph. But the actual top road speed is 42 mph and is limited by a governor.

links and proof and stuff:

  • [1] General Dynamics page
  • [2] army.mil stuff
  • [3] FAS page
==MeepSire (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

US Army Vet. here. I Trained on A2 & A2-SEP at Knox. At FTX we had these in the field doing 45+ M/h in rolling fields and slight inclines/hills. Mind you these were training vehicles, as such were/are governed for safetey. Upon graduating from Knox, a select few of us "Cherries" from each training unit were assigned to Stryker Brigade Combat Teams to crew ATGM Strykers as "placeholders" pending the MGS Stryker Deployment. It must be mentioned, during Training/Exercises in the Strykers we were able reach/exceed 60+ M/h off-road. These vehicles as well were/are governed. Personally, i managed to get 73 M/h from my ATGM (B-41, 4th Plt., Bco, 5/20 Inf. Bat., 3rd Bgd., 2nd ID.) on an FTX in the "Backyard" at Ft. Lewis. This was achieved in a similar landscape to what we traversed in M1's at Knox in regards to terrain and elevations. This Stryker info is relevant below.

I deployed to Iraq (Mozul, Baqubah, Ramadi, Taji) from '06 to '07. On numerous separate occasions, our Strykers, during Combat Maneuvers, were passed by Abrams. Both on and off-road. When Strykers are on Maneuvers, they go balls-out. I have witnessed "Governed" Strykers doing 70+ M/h on a regular basis, and have been passed by Abrams while doing so. Citation? I saw it, i looked at my Speedo in the Stryker as the Abrams passed...

So, facts from White-Papers and "official" spec's or Real-World Experience/Witness? Up to you guys, but i do want you to know that these vehicles are capable of way more than what is "published" in the spec's.

Sgt. Michael Dayton, US Army Ret. Shaggygoblin (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Aiming: Proper lead and gun tube elevation are applied to the turret by the computer, greatly simplifying the job of the gunner.[citation needed]

This is covered in the FM/TM's for the tank, however, the publications are still FOUO. That said, the statement in question is accurate.

Sgt. Michael Dayton, US Army Ret.Shaggygoblin (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Time to split the article into separate M1, A1 and A2 articles ?

The A2 is now a very different beast to the original M1. Thoughts from experts on splitting the article into the major models, along the lines of the way equivalent tanks of other countries such as Russia and China have separate articles ? Or have the various upgrades been so numerous and spread out that there are no real dividing points ? Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a split like that would work here. Sources do not always specify the version and A1 and A2 versions have both been used in Iraq and possibly some in Afghanistan. This article has one split off article already with History of the M1 Abrams. If another split were done, I think splitting the Variants and upgrades and TUSK sections to another article would be better. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It could be justified if there was enough content that this article would be ungainly. BTW does anybody know anything more about the A3, or is it just vaporware? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Heat reduction

In this reference [4] it says a diesel engine would reduce the Abrams' heat signature by 120 percent. It was assumed to be a grammar error because nothing can be reduced over 100 percent, and the words in the article were changed "greatly reduce." But this reference [5] says The heat that comes out the back of the engine is 300 percent less than what was coming out of the back of the turbine. There are now two outside articles that claim heat reductions of well over 100 percent. Could that just be another error or is their some way these over 100 percent reductions can be possible? America789 (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2013 (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 necessarily 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 NotifyOnline 13:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on M1 Abrams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yemen

One Saudi Abrams is destroyed by ´70s Soviet Made Fagot. I Think the Crew is burned Alive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy7CBKSujiE188.99.3.29 (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Operators

ISIL having them doesn't mean they are operators of the tank. The US has several Russian fighter jets, they aren't listed as operators of those seized aircraft. Not to mention the fact that the source provided got their information about 40 tanks from a blog post.2601:405:4300:DB28:554:BB50:A360:1650 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Good points. Rklawton (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Question About Gunner's Primary & Auxiliary Sights

I was wondering, can the foam pads on the gunner's sights be adjusted to accommodate users who are left-eye dominant? From what I've seen in videos of Abrams crews on gunnery drills, they're set up to provide support for a gunner using his right eye to use the sights, and I'm wondering if they can be adjusted for crew members who are not right-eye dominant. Orca1 9904 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on M1 Abrams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The article section on STRATEGIC, which is really about how the tank can be transported by air (or not), has no source for its claim of:

Strategic mobility is the ability of the tanks of an armed force to arrive in a timely, cost effective, and synchronized fashion. The Abrams can be carried by a C-5 Galaxy or a C-17 Globemaster III. The limited capacity (two combat-ready in a C-5, one combat-ready tank in a C-17) caused serious logistical problems when deploying the tanks for the first Persian Gulf War, though there was enough time for 1,848 tanks to be transported by ship.

March 2016

This seems to be erroneous. And it is not sourced anyway. It seems to be hard to get non-contradictory information about how this tank can be transported by air. Many online discussions say that the only way two tanks can be carried is in 'travel configuration', which is a far cry from 'combat-ready'. And a C-5 can't land in a warzone airfield. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.119.204 (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep upgraded the number of tanks please

Why no one is refreshing the number of tanks acording to the upgrades of the existant tanks? And why no one wrote about the M1's of the Nat'l guard? And please, make the world a favor and stop using Zaloga's erroneous data in this Wiki, that guy NEVER operated a tank and is talking from anything from submarines to nukes in their books, it's like using death traps, a book wrote by a mechanic who never served in the front and talks about u-boots and Lancasters in a book about tanks, as a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.240.103 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Development

Why is this section so utterly undeveloped? Meanwhile, of how big importance was Philip W Lett? BP OMowe (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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) 00:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Atlantic Resolve

The M1 Abrams is now back in Europe. [6]. 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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on M1 Abrams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M1 Abrams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M1 Abrams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edits to the variants section.

If no one wishes to dispute the validity of Col. Glenn Dean's presentation I would like to update the SEPv3 and SEPv4 lines to include information on the SEPv3 (ECP 1a) and SEPv4 (ECP 1b) taken from page 5 of https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2017/armament/Dean.pdf Ramlaen (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to the edits that an IP user added (then were reverted, and reverted again by you?) Not all the changes appeared to be supported by the sources, and the IP user didn't follow up after the revert (unless that was you ;-). Anyway, if the changes you wish to make are supported by the attached source(s), then go for it. It would be helpful to add a brief edit summary explaining the changes and it would be very helpful if you filled in the refs per WP:CITE (see Template:Cite web). Thanks - theWOLFchild 17:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Those three edits in sequence were me, I didn't realize I was logged out until the third. The changes were supported by the infographic on the page of the presentation covering SWAP-C and mobility. Which changes do you believe were not supported by the given source so that I know what to provide additional citation for?Ramlaen (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggest replacing the top image with a more recent photo of the Abrams.

The current image used, abrams-transparent.png, is quite dated and does not represent a variant of the Abrams in use. There are many available quality photographs of the M1A2 SEPv2 on wikimedia, perhaps switch to one of them? Ramlaen (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

As this article covers all generations of the M1, it would be better to leave the current image, and add images of later gen models to the sections that cover them. (imho) - theWOLFchild 17:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
My concern was less that it represents the most current Abrams (if that were the case I would have picked a photo of an Abrams with Trophy APS equipped) and more to the fact that the image does not properly represent any version that saw service. -Ramlaen (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

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? Jeb3Talk at me here 13:28, 19 February 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.241.72.9 (talk) 02:55, 14 July 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)

The M1A2C and M1A2D are the only future versions of the M1 under development. There are no authoritative sources regarding an "M1A3". https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/gcs-m1-abrams-main-battle-tank/ Can we please delete those references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.71.112.10 (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't http://www.g8.army.mil/pdf/Army_Equipment_Program2015.pdf an Army/DoD/Pentagon source? The graphic on page 32 shows M1A3. It seems like M1A3 was a term used a few years back during some levels of planning, and then superseded by later events. Whether including it informs, or confuses, is another matter. (Hohum @) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
That sourse is from May 2014. Unless there is more recent corroborating evidece, I agree. References to the M1A3 need to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.103.35 (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Egyptian M1A1 tanks number

It's written that 125 tanks were co-produced between Egypt and USA; while the right number of tanks exceed 1000 tanks. Yassermuhammad84 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia or PR Release?

From the lede: “...it introduced several innovative features, including a multifuel turbine engine, sophisticated Chobham composite armor...”

Words like “innovative” and “sophisticated” are common in PR releases and marketing material because they are vague to the point of being meaningless, but sound ‘positive’ and let individuals read their own subjective meaning into them.

They are not encyclopedic and have no descriptive value.

Would you buy a camera, a rifle or a bicycle on eBay or Craigslist described as “advanced”, “innovative”, or “sophisticated”? No you wouldn’t (unless you are a fool) because these words tell you nothing useful whatsoever about these items.

So why on earth are they included in an encyclopedia article that is supposed to objectively describe how a piece of military equipment works? User2346 (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

'sophisticated' in engineering terms - this is not PR - and we follow what the Reliable Sources state.50.111.25.253 (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in M1 Abrams

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of M1 Abrams's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto7":

  • From Michael Patrick Mulroy: Detsch, Jack (September 3, 2019). "US calls on Russia to cease Idlib fight amid terror strikes". Al-Monitor.
  • From Royal Ordnance L7: "DTIC ADA051050: Initial Firing Test Results of the 35mm Scaled Model of the 105mm M68 Tank Gun". January 1, 1978 – via Internet Archive.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Production Section - updated

I put in a simple paragraph to update the current status of the Lima Army Tank Plant and its production, as you requested, with an appropriate outside reference.

I note, however, that the sub-title of this section (2.1) is: "Production shutdown".

Well... there may have been plans in the past to shut it down, but they are no longer relevant.

I suggest that this sub-heading be changed to something more relevant. Two ideas come to mind:

1) Lima Army Tank Plant 2) Production shutdown − averted

or... anything else that might seem relevant.

Sincerely,

James 203.150.178.159 (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Info box 'Wars' and the Egyptian revolution 2011

Why is the Egyptian revolution listed under "Wars" there? it's not like the M1 Abrams has been in combat there... wtf? Wasteland1 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Kata'ib Hezbollah and ISIS

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-trending/how-iran-backed-militias-are-running-around-in-m-1-abrams-tanks/

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2018/02/08/nine-abrams-tanks-fell-into-the-hands-of-iranian-backed-militias-during-anti-isis-fight/

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/americas-enemies-have-been-running-around-the-desert-in-1823602893 Hibsiwakawam (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

How much ammo can the secondary guns carry?

Can somebody who knows what the ammo count of the machine guns are add it into the secondary tab? (sorry if this is not how "talk" is supposed to be used but this is my first time using talk. Thank you) Armymac3000 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Armymac3000

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Decisive Lethality Platform... and the weight!

Under the Next Generation Combat Vehicle, in the top section, they mention, as a pending program, the "Decisive Lethality Platform".

While there is no "official" program at the moment, it has been on the mind of the Army for some time. Furthermore, critics are starting to question the validity of the current M1, since it has 'grown' from 61-tons to current 73.6-tons. AND, were it to add the Israeli "Trophy" system, it would increase its weight by another 2.5-tons![1] We're getting in the neighbourhood of 80-tons!!!

I think that a statement or something needs to be added to the "Future Plans" section, to mention that while the 'growth' of the Abrams has made it into one of the World's premier tanks, its current size and weight are becoming problematic on the battlefield. Hence the rise of things like the Stryker whose Brigades were supposed to be "medium weight" between "heavy armor" units and the regular infantry. This has also given rise to the current search for a new "light tank" in the Mobile Protected Firepower program.

None of the other MBT's fielded around the world weigh anything close to what the Abrams weighs.

This makes me think of the German Wehrmacht in WWII when the Armoured divisions never fielded the Heavy tanks: Tiger I or later "King" Tiger II. Instead they were placed in separate "Heavy Tank Battalions" that were attached to higher command and "loaned" to the regular Armoured Divisions. Armoured Divisions consisted of "medium" tanks, on both sides, tanks up to around 40+tons.

Put simply, the Abrams is not only in danger of falling into this category, I submit that it already IS a Heavy tank, and is rapidly becoming a "specialized" unit, only to be used in certain terrain and specific situations on the battlefield.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing like a heavy tank to take it to the enemy. But battlefields are big, and terrain (and bridges) varies. You lose versatility, and universality... Hence the rise of the Stryker, etc. Japan's very modern and survivable Type 10 accomplishes all of this with weight in mind, coming in at 40, 44 or 48-tons depending on the package of armour applied.

I suggest that there be a paragraph discussing this under the "Future Plans" section, maybe even break-out a sub-section and get into this problem. Also, that the US Army has looked at this repeatedly for at least a decade, but has yet to come up with a workable solution.

James 202.44.196.204 (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If you can find sources substantiating that the weight of the Abrams has become a substantial issue that needs a full paragraph, maybe. As it stands, Wikipedia has to abide by a neutral point of view, and just proclaiming that the Abrams is too heavy for the role of main battle tank seems like editorializing to me.
LonelyProgrammer (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/01/the-m1-abrams-tank-too-fat-to-fight-a-war/

"Future" is partially about past

With phrases like "which will begin development in 2015".

The entire article needs to be updated/rewritten, and best with no "Future" at all to not have such situations in, well, future. 5.173.113.120 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Random injection of analysis comment

"The U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) conducted a thermal analysis of the M256 from 2002 to 2003 to evaluate the potential of using a hybrid barrel system that would allow for multiple weapon systems such as the XM1111 Mid-Range munition, airburst rounds, or XM 1147. The test concluded that mesh density (number of elements per unit area) impacts accuracy of the M256 and specific densities would be needed for each weapon system[107] "

This paragraph in the Armament, M256 smoothbore gun section refers to discussion of finite element modeling parameters and techniques used in modeling and simulating the barrel during analysis of firing and barrel heating. This comment is out of place and has little direct relevance to the section or the armament/ammunition topic without additional explanation. At current it only serves to confuse, I suggest it should either be removed or expanded further. Useful information would include details on the "hybrid barrel system" and what it entailed. The report itself only covers the validity of the analysis technique for matching empirical test data and does not seem to address any particular results on actual gun or ammunition combinations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.68.131.93 (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Please correct 2A00:23C8:4DB0:7D01:2C4D:F785:B6BC:939E (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Nuclear, biological and chemical redirects to Weapon of mass destruction, so changing it would be redundant. BilCat (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I've linked it to CBRN defense. (Hohum @) 00:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
That's probably better! BilCat (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Philip W. Lett Collection

I will be visiting Auburn University for a few days next week to see the Lett Collection. Philip Lett led the Chrysler design team for the XM1 Abrams. There are 30 square feet of documents and models of various projects Lett worked on. Please let me know if you need anything in particular scanned/photographed from this collection. Schierbecker (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Stop being biased and based on POV

There is no such thing as the Islamic State. It is the so-called Islamic State. You know the official name and the abbreviations ISIS and ISIL. So stop being biased and editing with a POV please. 46.31.112.214 (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's editorializing, and not permitted. "Islamic State" was its name at the time, and that's why it's used here. You've been blocked from editing this article for edit warring to prevent further disruption. BilCat (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M1_Abrams/Archive_4&oldid=1214351960"