Talk:M1 Abrams/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Popular Culture

Why does this article lack a pop culture category for this famous tank which has been in a movies, games and other works of media countless times? The M-60 article has such a section. This isn't an encyclopedia for military facts alone.

See WP:MILHIST#POP.--LWF 01:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You've answered your own question. "... countless times", so why bother mentioning them ? It's like trying to mention every time someone used a pencil in a TV show in the pencil article. The tank itself is notable. It's real world history is notable. The fact that it was used in the final level of Call of Duty 4 is trivial (in the context of an article about a tank) and thus not worth including. Megapixie 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And if notice most pages that have or had pop culture articals have had them deleted or people are trying to delte them. only articals such as the Walther PPK can reallly ahve one as it was james bonds gun and made it famous.(ForeverDEAD 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Taiwan?

I don't know how o communite with anybody here. I just arrived for the first time. I just wish to call attention to whoever wrote this report. I thought Taiwan did not order Abrams tanks, but yesterday I saw the SECOND photo in this AP report, http://dwb.fresnobee.com/24hour/world/story/3695409p-13109174c.html suggesting that Taiwan has bought the tanks. Please check. X2flu 16:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)x2flu

Does not look like an M1 Abrams, more like a M60 or something similar. --Denniss 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is without a doubt an M60 variant of some kind. No way an Abrams; completely different turret (with a cupola, not present on an M1), no side skirt, etc. Parsecboy 16:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

M1 inferiority before M256 gun and/or depleted uranium armor upgrade

I think it is quite strange, that the most modern US MBT only become superior to (ex-)Soviet tanks (T-64,T-80) by the end of Cold War. On the other hand, the inferior armor and gun power could have been offset by thermal imaging, which the Soviets lacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.168.198 (talk • contribs)

yea good point(ForeverDEAD 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

Jihadi Video?

Not sure if it is worth commenting on, but this video seems to show a number a number of M1 wrecks. http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/irak/video/x3gvnn_irak-resistance-destruction-de-char_news Geo8rge 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's really not worth mentioning in the article. Tanks get destroyed in combat. No great shakes; nothing new. The article already discusses this; to the point of having a table of tanks destroyed during the first Iraq War. There is an image of a destroyed Abrams from the second Iraq war. That's enough to illustrate the fact that tanks do in fact get destroyed. Parsecboy 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

B-23

In the Operation Desert Storm section, B-23 is linked to and referenced by Image:Summary.gif. When I click on B-23 I expect to get an article on the vehicle or the incident, not a document like this. The document can probably be moved to Wikisource and used as a primary source. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just moved it over to Wikisource here (my first use of Wikiesource, as it were). I'm not sure if I did it right, so if you're more familiar with Wikisource, please take a look at it. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I remember reading somewhere that some Marine (Zinni?) felt the Abrams was not a good infantry support tank due to the exhaust going out the rear, endangering infantry hiding there. AThousandYoung 09:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an attachment we put on the back that goes over the exhaust. It points points upwards for this exact reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitched83 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That is true, a consequence of using the gas turbine engine (in fact this very point is mentioned in the article). I'm guessing the Soviet/Russian T-80 would also have this problem. The main disadvantage is that a gas turbine guzzles much more fuel (especially when idling) than a modern 4-stroke diesel engine of the same power output. Lokster 05:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, I think Israel's Merkava would be the best infantry support tank since it can carry troops in the back. The other one would be the Ukrainian BTMP-84, a version of the T-84. As far as I know these are the only two MBTs that can carry infantry. Lokster 00:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're both forgetting that most MBTs aren't designed as infantry support; they're designed to kill other tanks, and that's usually it. The Merkava was a specialized design, based on Israel's unique requirements (i.e., near constant asymetrical warfare, and a much smaller population than her hostile neighbors). Parsecboy 00:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Merkava's compartment in the rear was originally to store more ammunition, not to carry infantry — its ability to carry four infantrmen is a useful byproduct. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Caterpillar track

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how thick the caterpillar track is on an Abrams? (or any modern tank for that matter) I'm guessing its about 5cm, please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks! Lokster 05:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Id love to tell you but sadly i dont no the answer, ill try and do some research though ForeverDEAD 13:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's about 5 inches. heavy as hell too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitched83 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is Popular Culture for tanks already?

Why you chose to not add popular culture to this thing already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.144.73 (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what wikipedia isn't. It would be nice surely but they get out of hand easily and have every appernce and their mother in their. For there to be a pop culture section it usaly has a reference of how a media outlet seriously impacted this gun. ForeverDEAD 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The updated guideline is at WP:MILMOS#POP. Please read it, and feel free to add encyclopedic information about the subject of this article, supported by reliable references. —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 23:00 Z

Just put Popular Culture for the Tank already or else.(76.247.222.101 05:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Or else...what? Parsecboy 11:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Put it down already. The Tank is featured everywhere including the Transformers.(TougHHead 01:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Did we not just tell you why there isnt? This article is about the TANK not pop culture. The only way it would be included if it was actualy impacting the tank. M1 abramd is important to transformers- Transformers ARNT notable to M1 abrams. Serriously unless theres a major change in the entire wikipedia policy and wikiprojects any attempts will be reverted Jack The Pumpkin King 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, the WP:Military History policy on pop culture covers this. Insignificant, non-notable appearances in pop culture are not allowed. -Fnlayson 02:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Then put up a quote on this article.(TougHHead 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

Most popular culture references are either insignificant, inaccurate, or both. The guidelines are clear, and pop culture does not belong in this article. --Aquesenb (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

M1A2 introduction

When did the A2 version enter service? When did the other "further upgrades" mentioned in the article enter service? —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 23:08 Z

1998 (I think) Lokster (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

M1A1 Driving controls

I have a Image I took of how they drive the tank, not sure if it could be useful. Here it is see what you can do with it. I have a lot of pics I took while in iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonker83 (talk • contribs) 21:57, October 21, 2007

Thats a great pic, upload all you can. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was a driver in Iraq for a few months. That picture shows you just how simple the controls are. T handle steering and motorcycle like throttle. The metal button in the middle slides left and right for forward, revers, park and pivot. Two foot pedals: brake and parking brake. The hydrological brakes are VERY sensitive. Hit them too hard and the tank will stop on a dime tossing around everyone in the turret (usually followed by a boot to the back of the head by the Tank Commander haha). Control panel to the right of the driver controls everyone from starting the tank, to the bilge pump. Pretty much all the controls for everything in the hull. Stitched83 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs Source to Support Allegation that Soviet Tank Auto-Loader is Dangerous

In the Article, there is a little "Requires Source" superscript right after the section which mentions that Soviet Auto-loaders are dangerous to their crews. I do not have a quote to support this, but I know for a fact that sometimes the T-72's auto loader would mistake a sleeve or hand for a round, and pull a crewman's arm into the breech, then close it, thereby cutting off the crewmember's arm. I hope someone can find a source to support this... 70.70.219.147 (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the old tale about carnivorous auto-loaders is an urban legend. I've never actually seen a reliable source make the claim. It really shouldn't be in this article to begin with. Parsecboy (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Soviet autoloaders are proven dangerous. In fact the BMP-1 infantry tank is the most dangerous of all, it has a very small single-seater turret, which is almost completely filled by the breach of a big 73mm low recoil cannon and 3-4 antitank missiles in stowage. The cannon's autoloader, which feeds RPG-7 grenade like ammunition, is a long, totally exposed swing mechanism and works extremely close to the gunner's arm. It does severe hands every now and then.

Nonetheless, autloaders are now coming into fashion in the west as well, maybe because today's soldiers are not as sturdy as the cold war generation used to be and those 120mm rounds are sure big nd heavy. The french Leclerc has full autoloader and the new Merkava IV has a semi-autoloader with a 10-shot rotary magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

https://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/armormag/backissues/1990s/1998/ja98/4sewell98.pdf is a decent source citing the problem with the autoloader. I've seen a video of it in operation, the auto-loader is exposed, so getting clothing caught is potentially possible. OTOH, I doubt many limbs have actually been lost! Pmw2cc (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone find out how fast a well-trained crew can reload the gun? I was thinking it would be good comparison to the Leclerc's 12 rds/min.128.208.86.244 (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A well trained loader, on an M1 Abrams, can load a round between four to five seconds. Obviously, this will depreciate the more rounds he has to load over time. JonCatalán^(Talk) 07:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I had an average of three second from the time the main gun is fired untill the next round is in and gun is armed ready to go. For the test we take once a year, you have to do it in under 5 seconds. You better be faster than that though if you want to be my loader. Stitched83 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Casualties among crewmembers

Was incident No.4 in the list of disabled or damaged Abrams a case of friedly fire? According to the list, the incident resulted in 1 KIA. If it was not friendly fire, statements in the Iraq War section concerning an attack on 29 October 2003 ("This marked the first time deaths resulted from a hostile-fire assault on the M1 tank from enemy forces") would be incorrect. If the casualties in No. 4 were caused by friendly fire, maybe this should be stated in the list to avoid confusion about when the first death from hostile fire occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PINTofCARLING (talk • contribs) 23:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The table lists casualties in Desert Storm, the 1991 conflict, there really isnt a list as of now for the current conflict. sseagle (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not what he's asking. He's asking whether or not the KIA for Bumper #66 was caused by enemy action or friendly fire. To respond to his question, if you look at the source provided, it shows that it was the 3 DU sabots from other Abrams that destroyed the tank and killed the crewmember. It actually doesn't mention the RPG hits at all. It might be better to remove those until someone can provide a source for stating that that specific Abrams was in fact hit by RPGs. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The source provided states that The first tank destroyed (B-66) initially was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). (Check it out). DagosNavy 00:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I must've missed it. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... when I read that source, I find the following:

"The first tank destroyed (B-66) initially was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). Shortly after the RPG hit B-66, one or more US tanks fired on it. Four additional tanks rushing to B-66's aid subsequently were fired on and struck too.[362] We know this about the five Abrams tanks damaged in this action"

which to me does discuss the RPG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.115.84.2 (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulge

Please, what is the purpose of the cylindrical bulge halfway along the barrel? Thank you, Yehudi Okekoky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.104.50 (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a Bore evacuator Megapixie (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I am enlightened once again. Yehudi.

Amount of fuel needed for startup

The claim that 11 galleons of fuel are consumed for startup of the engine alone has been confirmed by the USMC.--77.191.187.91 (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that not only is 11 galleons of fuel a little extreme, but I am also quite aware that most if not all conventional western militaries haven't used Galleons for over 200 years.

Perhaps you meant gallons?99.173.63.46 (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

only takes about a gallon to startup. Doesnt matter though when you have hundreds of gallons in your tanks plus your reserve tank Stitched83 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of Tanks Knocked Out 2003-present

I read an article in the newspaper back in 2005 that claimed the military had lost more than 80 Abrams tanks damaged or destroyed during the course of current war. Here is the link http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm . I think this should be mentioned somewhere in the article.Krg8501 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You added that to the article. Note it says the 80 Abrams were badly damaged and were sent home for repairs. That does not mean they were "lost". -Fnlayson (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The article does not make it clear whether all or even most of those tanks were actually repaired. It only states that 80 of them were "knocked out". They were withdrawn from combat operations and were thus effectively lost, since there is no mention whatsoever of any of them having been returned to combat operations in Iraq. Additionally one can argue that rather than being repaired, some of the tank's parts were merely recycled in the production of new tanks.Krg8501 (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, it does not say sent home for repairs, but it does not say they were destroyed either; only badly damaged. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They were rendered inoperable. They could no longer function. In effect, they were destroyed. While it is possible their remains could have been reconstructed to form a serviceable vehicle, one way or another they were casualties. Whether any of them were repaired and returned to Iraq, the article does not say and you cannot speculate as to the number returned to active duty. Only 1 or even all 80 may have been returned. It is fair to assume some but not all were repaired, so it only makes sense to say "damaged or destroyed" and until you can find a reliable source demonstrating that all 80 of them were successfully repaired, it should be left that way. The point is the M1 is not invincible and insurgents have managed to knock out several of them during operations in Iraq. You seem to be trying to imply that insurgents do not have the firepower to disable or destroy an Abrams. This is clearly not the case.Krg8501 (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Destroyed is not supported by the reference in place. Wikipedia is not for assuming and original research. The wording in the article does not say anything about them being repaired or anything like that. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Destroyed tanks are mentioned later in the same paraph in the article. They don't bother shipping back destroyed tanks. They shot or blow up crippled tanks to prevent recovery of hardware/parts by the enemy (see Ref. 28). -Fnlayson (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You're the one making assumptions. The article makes it clear those tanks were no longer operational. As for the argument that "They don't bother shipping back destroyed tanks", that's exactly what they're doing. The 80 tanks were destroyed and they were shipped back to see if they could be salvaged. If they had not been destroyed, why not just repair them in Iraq? Think about it. Simple and routine repairs can be made on site, since tank units are equipped with repair shops for exactly that reason. They were knocked out by insurgents and were thus casualties. They were sent back to the U.S. to see if the remains could be reconstructed. Unless you have a source which proves any of those tanks were successfully repaired, the logical conclusion is that they were knocked out, pure and simple. That's the bottom line. I suggest we find some sort of objective arbitration to settle our disagreement, otherwise we will simply continue arguing about this in circles.Krg8501 (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What I don't think you're aware of is that there are varying levels of maintenance required for all military heavy equipment, only the most basic of which can be done by the unit mechanics. There's also battalion level maintenance, and then depot level. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are not depot-level facilities in Iraq. Parsecboy (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I concede to your points Parsecboy, but the question remains how the 80 Abrams tanks reported in the article should be classified. Damaged? Destroyed? It becomes an almost semantic question of determining when a piece of equipment can be labeled as a casualty. Is a tank still considered repaired if only one piece of it, like the rangefinder, is cannibalized and used in another tank? I just want an accurate interpretation of the information in the article. In the end, 80 tanks were knocked out, that is, they were rendered inoperable. Why not just say that? Why must we qualify it by claiming that they weren't actually rendered inoperable?Krg8501 (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that when Fnlayson replaced the few words in question with "severely damaged and forced out of action" was a decent summing up of the issue. Until there are reliable sources that state one way or the other (whether they were repaired, written off, or whatever else), that's pretty much the limit of what we should say here. We can't assume that they were all repaired and returned to active service; likewise, we cannot assume that they were all written off/cannibalized/whatever. Some ambiguity is required, given the ambiguity of the sources we currently have. Parsecboy (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Parsecboy. I think I was too hasty in making that alteration. For the time being, I think it should be changed back to merely "forced out of action". Generally speaking, it is advisable to avoid ambiguity in a Wiki article, but in this case it may actually make more sense. I'll change it back to "forced out of action" but I think we should try to appropriate a more definitive phrase like "rendered inoperable", but within the limits of the information available in the article, which is admittedly vague.Krg8501 (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I think "rendered inoperable" might be interpreted to mean something like "Iraqis ran up and poured sugar into the gas tank" (a myth, yes I know). I'd prefer wording that isn't ambiguous in that specific sense. Parsecboy (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Then if there are no other objections, I'll agree to leave it as is.Krg8501 (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

New Operators

The Iraqi Army has submitted a report demonstraiting its desire to purchase 140 M1A1 tanks.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/M1-Abrams-Tanks-for-Iraq-05013/

(RorikStrindberg (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Iraq will not be an operator until they actually get the tanks. Maybe considered one after signing a contract. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Iraq has only submitted a request to acquire the tanks. There is the distinct possibility that Congress (which has oversight on such arms sales) will block the sale. If and when the deal is actually agreed upon, and contracts are issued, then Iraq can be listed among the operators, with a note stating that the tanks are on order and not yet delivered. Parsecboy (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Extra machine gun?

Has the M2 mounted at the base of the main gun (shown in M1A1 with TUSK image) been added to the TUSK upgrade or is it optional? I was comparing to the Army TUSK figure. Just wondering, thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I spoke with a former tanker who had served with the 1st Cavalry Division during OIF II (2004-2005) and this "extra" feature was added sometime during 2004-2005, currently most U.S. Army M1A1/A2 Abrams in theater are equiped with this option, however, not all unit commanders/tank commanders implement the M2 above the main gun for all operations. I assume collateral damage is probably a major factor for this reason.

If you scan for photographs on the U.S. Department of Defense or U.S. Army website, you will see photographs a handful of Abrams rolling outside the wire without M240s on the loaders hatch and M2s not mounted on the TC's hatch as well. Although you will see in more recent photographs the M2 mount above the main gun without the M2 actually mounted. To the right is an example of the M2 mount without the actual machinegun, also note the external lights mounted for night operations.

If the M2 machine gun is actually mounted above the main gun, the M240E coaxial machinegun is removed since the M2 takes the place of the M240E. -Signaleer (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I guess the above main gun mounted M2 is easier to aim and service in that position than the built-in M240 co-axial gun. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

aiming and servicing is the exact same. You use the gunners sights to fire the main gun and also the secondary machine gun mounted next to the maingun. It is mounted inside the tank next to the gunner so maintenance would be the same either way. We (Marines) dont have the 50 cal coax modification. we only get hand me downs from the army haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stitched83 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

M1E1

I've received a small book that mentions the M1E1, a joint project between West Germany and the US to standardize as much as possible between the Leo II and the Abrams. Because I don't want just one reference, does anyone have supplemental references? Thanks! Oc t ane ^{[improve me?]} 05.09.08 0956 (UTC)

I'm surprised your book does not reference this fact, when was this book published? -Signaleer (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It was published in 1989, by Squadron/Signal Publications, Inc. The title is M1 ABRAMS in action, Armor Number 26. As an addendum to the previous comment, it also mentions the IP M1, but that can probably be considered part of the E1 program. Oc t ane ^{[improve me?]} 17.09.08 1801 (UTC)

The M1E1 refers to the M1A1 during prototype stage, and the standardization that your book probably talks about is the introduction of the 120mm tank-gun, manufactured by Rheinmetall. The IPM1 came out before the M1A1 (IP stands for "Improved Product"). See: Green, Michael & Stewart, Greg, M1 Abrams at War, Zenith Press, 2006, pp. 23–25. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Transporting the M1 by Air

The article points to logistical issues in the First Gulf War of 1991, stating than a C-5 Galaxy could only carry two combat-ready Abrams. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, only the re-engined C-5M Super Galaxy can carry two M-1s, as its maximum payload just barely reaches above the weight of the two tanks and loading equipment; that aircraft was not available in 1991. If the C-5B could take off with two M-1s on board, it would be too unstable in flight to allow for safe operation. I want to correct the sentence in the main article, but I'd like feedback first. Raryel (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We used C130s. Lound as hell. Stitched83 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that....DMorpheus (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to the original comment made by Raryel, I would recommend you do some research and get some reliable sources to back up this proposed change. I would go directly to the U.S. Air Force, i.e., www.af.mil to find some good points of contact and/or discuss transportation capabilities. I found this website: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=84 it's the factsheet for the C-5 Galaxy. Ponits of contact are as follows: Air Mobility Command, Public Affairs Office; 503 Ward Drive Ste 214, Scott AFB, Ill., 62225-5335, DSN 779-7821 or commercial 618-229-7821. -Signaleer (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No discussion of gyrostabilization

There is no discussion of gyrostabilization in the article. In fact, I can't find a wiki entry for gyrostabilization. The discussion of gun aiming in this article points to every device on the tank except for perhaps the most important feature: gyrostabilization. Without automatic compensation for the movement of the tank over the ground, the cannon could never hit anything. Before gyrostabilization was introduced, very late in WWII, tank crews had to stop and shoot. If anyone has a good reference available for me to cite, please offer it, or introduce the topic yourself. Raryel (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am actually planning to rewrite this article and take it to FA, but I am looking to buy another 4 or 5 sources on the M1 Abrams before I start. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

there are some inconsistencies in the article whether how many were sold to Australia from US stocks....58 or 59? --MoRsE 12:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The correct figure is 59 M1A1 AIM tanks. There are also 7 Hercules recovery vehicles, 14 tank transporters, 8 fuel trucks, and some simulators for gunnery and driving. Most of the tanks are based in Darwin with the 1st Armoured Regiment. Some others are based at Puckapunyal in Victoria. Lokster (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Another is the use of JP-8, the Army does not use JP-8 in it's M1's, it uses diesel, to simplify logistical operations due to all it's other vehicles running on diesel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.248.249 (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You have it the other way around. The army uses JP-8 instead of diesel for almost all its vehicles to simplify logistics. Its easier to ship a lot of helicopter fuel across the world than it is the ship a lot of helicopter fuel and diesel the same distance.Montizzle (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Marine Corps uses JP8 in the tanks. I spent many hours refueling my tank with teh stuff. It can also run on diesel, just not as well. The mechs told me it's because it gunks up the engine. Stitched83 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Info box lists unit price as AU$10m, but reference lists ~AU$550m for 59 tanks + "extra refueling, recovery and transport support vehicles, training simulators and an integrated logistic support package" which seems to indicate a unit cost of $AUD9m or less. 123.243.115.45 (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Squares next to the cannon

hi, I'm always wondering what the two squares next to the cannon are. you can see them on these two pictures http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/DF-SD-06-00583.jpg (one looks like filled with duck tape) http://data.primeportal.net/m1_iraqp/m1_broken_2/Dscf0093.jpg (where the helmet skull is shown). Is it some kind of swadron markings? cu AssetBurned (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe they are marking the position where Combat Identification Panels can be mounted, as mentioned in the article. Hohum (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Link to "Grizzly combat engineering vehicle"

The Link to Grizzly combat engineering vehicle redirects to the article on the M1 itself. Either the redirect or the link itself should be changed. --Che010 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Official name is Grizzly Combat Mobility Vehicle (CMV). -Signaleer (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

^ Thanks Signaleer. Grizzly combat engineering vehicle was linked in the Development section. But that link redirects back to this article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for tidy up

Is the "List of Abrams disabled or damaged in Desert Storm" under combat history really necessary? I think the article would be better if the table was removed or moved to a separate page. Black Sabre (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is enough information for the table to move moved to a separate article, perhaps a link at the top of "Operation Desert Storm" could be placed in an italicized wikilink. I support the move, I don't recommend the deletion of the table completely, just moved to another article. -Signaleer (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please Maintain Operational Security

Photographs of damaged tanks are illegal and are in violation of OPSEC. I found only one picture in this article, and it is debateable as to whether it is a violation or not. However, I ask that you all keep this in mind for future edits. Thanks for the good work so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.127.69 (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First, new comments go on the bottom of the talk page. Second, photographs of damaged or destroyed vehicles are in no way illegal. Also, this website has nothing to do with the US military, so OPSEC rules that govern what members of the military may publish in their blogs in no way apply to us. Thank you for your concerns. Parsecboy (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

>Also, this website has nothing to do with the US military<

Well, Grenada and Iraq, for example, used to think the same way and look what kind of suprise visitors they got!. I think Uncle Sam will soon act against Wikileaks, there is too much secret military material going up there nowadays (JDAM, F-15C, F-22 docs, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

None of those weapon systems are secrets though. They may not be widely known among the general public, but plenty of info can be gleaned from public sources... Which, by the way, is the only info that's allowed in Wikipedia articles! If it can't be verified by publicly available information, it's not likely to stay in Wikipedia for very long. -- MyrddinEmrys (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The majority of images which are being used in this article are public domain and published on either the U.S. Department of Defense or U.S. Army website. -Signaleer (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In engagement 14 (B-24) the crew should have installed the reactive armor on their duffle bags to prevent damage to their shaving kits. This event clearly could have been avoided if someone had done their PCCs / PCIs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.174.52 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Abrams does hat trick

Throwing the turret was supposed to be impossible, but look at what happenes to vehicle #132 ! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.primeportal.net/m1_damaged_iraq.htm

If I recall correctly, that was caused by 15 or so daisy-chained 152mm rounds buried in the road; if that much HE went off beneath any tank, it would pop it's top. IRRC, it happened twice in a relatively short period of time, and hasn't happened since. The difference between the Abrams and tanks such as the T-72, is that this wasn't caused by rounds inside the tank exploding. Parsecboy (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If the damage was done by an IED landmine so powerful, shouldn't the hull and chassis blow into smitherers, since that was the first thing to come into contact with the explosion? Yet, that hulk seems to be in a pretty good condition, only a few roadwheels are missing. One 152mm round has about 6 kilos of TNT in it, fifteen of those should turn any tank into metal chips you can recognize only with a magnifying glass. At the very least, the engine section should have flown away as well. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In the initial briefing we received before going down-range, the report had actually said there was an additional 4-500 pounds of conventional HE added in with the shells, but we later found this to be false. Perhaps it wasn't a direct hit, I don't know the exact details of the event, but I do know that it happened, at least twice (that I'm aware of). These are also the only incidents I'm aware of where an Abrams was de-turreted, so AFAIK, these photos are from those incidents. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Explosions don't work like that. Assuming the IDE went off underneath the tank, it would punch a hole through the thin belly armor. The overpressure inside the tank would then cause the turret ring, the weakest point of the tank's hull, to fail, causing the turret to fly off. The enormous hole left by the flying turret would let the force of the explosion vent upwards, leaving the outside of the tank mostly undamaged. --Carnildo (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Carnildo. At least someone else in this room has played w/ fire before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.174.52 (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Successor

I just added "successor" to the bottom of the article. Username 1 (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That text should be summarized. The details are at Future Combat Systems Mounted Combat System. Successor to some degree, I guess. The FCS vehicles seem to be more mobile howitzer/artillery to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is lacking in coaxial and secondary weapons but it is not NLOS so it is a successor and it will have a comparativly somewhat light 120 mm gun. Username 1 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Mounted Combate systems is a joke if you ask me, the thing might be able to be dropped off to a theater of war quickly and move fast but its armor is pathetic. 3 inches of composite and steel armor with passive protection like ERA(explosive reactive armor) and Active defence systems are nothing compared to 1 foot of advanced Chobham(Burlington) Armor. If you ask me all we have to do is replace the main gun with the new lightweight 120mm gun that is being developed for the new MCS right now, replace the tracks with rubber tracks like the ones on the NLOS cannon, and replace the turbin engines for all tanks operating in the gulf with diesal engines to save fuel and thier we go, I think we have dropped the weight by about 2 1/2 tons already. Meanwhile if we us more composite armor in the Chobham mix and replace some of the heavy metals in it with it, thats further savings in weight. We could decrease the weight of the vehicle, increase the fuel efficency, and increase their lethality without using billions of dollars to design an entirly new tank. --HellraizerofUSA (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Refute the cost of the m1a1 being A$10 million

I refute the cost being 10 million dollars per vehicle as the project cost was A$550 million for 59 tanks, and does not reflect a unit value when deviced because a project cost takes into account axillary expences such as transporting the system, spares, maintenance and training, Australia defence spending on aquiring new systems tends to also account future cost such as maintenance into the project cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.198.238 (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source to support your claim? Parsecboy (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you look at the Article used to say the tanks cost 10 million dollars for 59 tanks, it says that the price also includes tank transporters and other axillary equipment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.91.227 (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

New picture for infobox

Does anyone want to find a better picture for the infobox? ZStoler (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Until a few days ago, it was this one. I don't much like the current image; its resolution is low, it's sort of fuzzy and dark, it's just not a high-quality photo. Commons has a number of photos of the tank, perhaps there's a better one there. Parsecboy (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about this picture I think it is better... ZStoler (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the lead image to the one which has been up for many months, I don't see any valid reason to change the photograph since it's a high resolution and an excellent representation of the vehicle. -Signaleer (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but that picture makes the tank look like its a rust bucket. That tank was probably an original from the Gulf War and has probably since been refurbished. I think we should get a picture of one that is in good condition so we can portray the tank properly. ZStoler (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: I found this picture(File:OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg), I am going to redo it and remove all the icons and lines, and make it transparent. Will post it when done. ZStoler (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That should be pretty nice. I look forward to seeing it. Parsecboy (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: Here we go, File:Abrams-transparent.png ZStoler (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. And fast work too! Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I try to do stuff fast because if I don't it falls onto my I'll do it never list :p I really liked how it came out, there are a few rough spots that I may fix tommorow, because I had to brush in some areas where the lines went over the tank. I think it is a really good picture and I hope it stays in PNG format because it will loose its glory if its put back into jpeg. ZStoler (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the photo being used shows one of the prototype versions of the TUSK upgrade. Some of the features were dropped or changed and others added since then, so the picture really doesn't reflect an operational vehicle. The RWS is gone, the commander's MG has a thermal sight, the ERA blocks are different, there's a second co-ax Mg, belly armour and there's additional shielding around the commander's and loader's hatches. The final upgrade looks more like this (basically all the tan parts, with the exception of the tow bars on the font of the hull). The TUSK section could probably use an update too... Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

mention

Should we mention in this article the inflatable M1 Abrams mentioned on Dummy tank? Username 1 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a mention if it can be fit in with content somewhat related. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

transporting tanks

There's a sentence in the article that says "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 Gulf War, though there was enough time for 1,848 tanks to be transported by ship." and then about a paragraph later it says "A total of 1,848 M1A1s were deployed to Saudi Arabia."

So...if 1,848 tanks were sent by ship, then why mention the C-5 and C-17 as part of a logistical problem? It makes it sound like the C-5 & -17 were used to airlift the M1 to the theater, but then appears to say that all the 1,848 deployed tanks were sent by ship? Tvaughan77 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Operation Just Cause

"Operation Just Cause" is listed under "Wars", but WHEN, WHERE, and with WHICH UNIT were M1's used in Panama??? I think only US Army M151 Sheridans, M113's, and USMC AAV's and LAV's used there so far as armor goes. Any data on M1 use in Op Just Cause? I think, at least as the actual combat ops go, that this is a minor Wikipedia fact error." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.30.46 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

M1A3

Added a brief section on recently announced plans for an M1A3, sourced from the Army Times and Marine Corps Times. Probably needs a little cleanup, which I'll get to as I can. Bamac30 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)bamac

I added it to the history section.username 1 (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I uploaded this. What is this and did i get the license correct? username 1 (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:M1 Abrams2007.JPG

The Creative Commons license is correct if you took the picture yourself. That's not clear with the photo link on the image page. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not take the picture. I'm still kind of new to the image uploading thing even after uploading more than a couple dozen images. Should i db-self it?.

Section merges

I just merged the combat history section with the history section. I recommend that List of disabled M1 Abrams in combat be moved to History of the M1 Abrams or Combat history of the M1 Abrams as the title is a little limiting. Also there needs to be a section about the Abrams combat history in the war in Afghanistan. perhaps in this article Iraq and Afghanistan should be merged under a war on terrorism section and in the new article separate them. username 1 (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, i've started the article on my userspace so that trimming of the History section can begin. username 1 (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Strategic mobility: Re-added image, image of M1 being offloaded from ship, does not coincide with the article

it is not a ship or wheeled vehicle.do not remove pls. Wdl1961 (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted back to original image. -Signaleer (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Signaleer could you expound on your wisdom pls.Wdl1961 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There's not room for both images in section. Airlifting has to be more common. Maybe there's another place for the LCAC image. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

it is certainly tactical ability more than a airplane.Wdl1961 (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC):::

Tank classifications

Is there actually a difference between a "main battle tank" and a "combat tank?" The article has italicized the phrase "M60 combat tank," and call me an uneducated grunt, but I was under the impression that "battle" and "combat" were interchangeable. If there is such a difference, I'd like to see a link to it so I can understand. If not, anyone got an objection to removing the italics?

(I thought it would be nice to ask in case someone had a reason for italicizing that.) BHenry1969 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Great point, changes made from Combat Tank to Main Battle Tank. -Signaleer (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe MBT (main battle tank) are the type of tank that is used in most situations while combat tank are other kinds of tanks that a nation still uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.185.110 (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Responses to: 1. MBT-The US Army began using the term MBT when the last US Army M103 heavy tank battalions were retired & the M60 MBT was fielded in 1960. (Ref: Hunnicutt). The Army wanted to name the M60 an MBT, but the paper work had already been completed naming the M60, the "Combat Tank". (Ref: Hunnicutt). The MBT replaced the former 90mm Gun Tank, 76mm Gun Tank, etc. etc. 2. "Combat Tank" was italicized to indicate it was not a Patton tank; as Wikipedia (and toy companies, etc.) insist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.61.235 (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering what the deal is

Why is there a template with a list of just about every Abrams lost? I don't see this on many other military vehicles articles (actually, I haven't seen another like it). There isn't one of the T-72, F-16, Harrier, etc etc articles. There seems to be some kind of weird fetish with some Wikipedia users to show that the Abrams is somehow an inferior tank to other comparable MBTs. There very well could be a great reason for this template on the Abrams' article, and if so, please explain it to me. But as we all know, there are people that just love to sit around and point out faults in things (especially when it concerns something American). I'm not accusing (yet), but I am curious. SoulBrotherKab (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have anything to do with its creation, but it seems reasonable to me that since so few have been lost in combat, it's not unreasonable to document them. There also isn't a perception of invincibility surrounding the F-16, for example, so it's not a big deal when one gets shot down. Parsecboy (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I didn't look at it that way (being that so FEW have been lost in combat that you could put them all on a small template). But that along with the perception of invincibility of the Abrams...why is there not a template for the F-15? I mean if you compare the combat records of the Abrams and the Eagle to other tanks and planes, certainly those two would be at the top? Besides, few F-15s have been lost in combat

Basically my concern for the template is that it becomes a magnet for people that revel in the deaths of others (specifically Americans). I'm sure you can understand that and see how that could possibly happen. SoulBrotherKab (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to delete the Holocaust related articles in case people come to revel in them too? Hohum (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't list every person that's died. Let's say if there's two articles about genocide. One lists every single person that's died, another doesn't. Nor do any other articles about a genocide event. All have similar death tolls...why does one have a table listing all specific deaths? That's why I brought up the F-15 article. Similar combat performance to the Abrams. Both been around relatively the same time (approx. 25-30 years), both have a excellent combat record, both have been criticized for not being able to do certain things (Eagle's a mainly air superiority fighter not striker, Abrams not a great urban area tank), both have very low combat losses, and both have an aura of invincibility around them. But no big fancy table running down the loss of every Eagle.

Look, I'm not objecting to the table of losses. I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here. It just doesn't seem consistent with other military vehicle articles. I can understand why there's not a table for the losses of say the T-72 or something...because it would obviously be way too long, and not 100% accurate because who knows how some of them, since the years they've been in operation, got lost. You have to admit there's people on Wikipedia that like to sit here and edit articles to prop up things they like, and denigrate things they don't. Usually based on people being fans of a certain vehicle, dislike of a certain vehicle, nationalism, or just plain immaturity (I mean take a look at the Pakistani Air Force article I've been trying to clean up...my God it's a mess). SoulBrotherKab (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Some questions that need to be asked: 1.) Is this information encyclopedia worthy? 2.) Is the information worth having in the main article? I believe the information is valid for a comprehensive encyclopedia article about the M1 Abrams but does it deserve to be in the main section? Possibly having a sub-article linked may be appropriate. -Signaleer (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The comparison to the F-15 is not exactly appropriate. Its losses have largely been due to accidents, which are generally non-notable btw. The Gulf War table probably needs to be moved to a "List of M1 Abrams losses" article. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

List of disabled M1 Abrams in combat was created with the table from this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You could argue that the losses are that low that it makes sense to list every single lost. A list for the T-72 would contain several thousands entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.182.108.141 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Official term Operation Desert Storm

An editor removed a US government reference, stating that a US government source is not accepted by wikipedia? Is this correct...or vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.156.2 (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A US Government Source is certainly acceptable in Wikipedia as it conforms to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. AloDuranium (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

Mcgregor noted above that the Abrams we have in the lead is just a prototype and has been upgraded since. I like the lead image just fine but here's the real thing. Marcus Aurelius (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

US.Army inventory of M1A1's and M1/M1IP's.

M1 and M1IP's were manufactured in quantity of ~3000 in years 1980 to 1984, next production switched to M1A1's manufactured in quantities of ~4000 in years 1985 to 1992/93.

Why then, info's are changed to 4000 M1A1's in Army inventory and later it is mentioned that of these are 3000 M1/M1IP's in storage, this is untrue and just a lie. Did a person that wrote this untrue info can't read sources with understanding?

More, There was only ~72 M1A2's builded as new ones, rest were upgraded and rebuilded old M1's and M1IP's. In such case there is less than 3000 M1's in storage and no M1IP's in storage from ~800 builded (all rebuilded to M1A2/A2SEP)... + many of them are or will be rebuilded to specialised vehicles like the ABV.

So I please that person modifing info's on the M1 quantity in the Army read sources, as they clearly say how many tanks in what variants were manufatured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DamianPL (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)