Talk:M1 Abrams

metric or customary units?

Can this tank be serviced and repaired in Europe and the rest of the world with metric tools and screws etc.? -- Espoo (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Given how common US bolts and parts are in the US, that seems doubtful to me. But note that Wikipedia is not meant to be a how to manual type of thing per WP:NOTGUIDE. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

My question is an indirect way of pointing out that this article is missing essential info, whether the tank is made with bolts and other parts in metric units or not. This then provides the essential information whether or not it makes sense for other countries to buy or temporarily use this tank or not. --Espoo (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

If other countries are using Wikipedia as a guide to whether or not to purchase or use a certain, then the tank is probably a bad fit for those countries. They should stick with bows and arrows. As to readers, it's just WP:Trivia. BilCat (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of the importance and role of Wikipedia in keeping citizens informed and in being empowered to control and criticize political decisions, especially on issues that are decided mostly in secret. Even most journalists first go to WP to check for specifically things like this issue of metric or not or inefficient mix.--Espoo (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Metric vs. imperial was a major point of contention during the MBT-70 project. It rose to the level of SecDef and Defense Minister, who were still unable to resolve the question. I think it deserves a mention. We should probably have a production and maintenance section. I suspect the measurement issue is a major reason why the U.S. says the Abrams is not suited to Ukraine. Schierbecker (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

IIRC, most of not all of the U.S. military uses metric now, but I could be wrong. Or, like most of the US, they use a confusing mix of both. BilCat (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Espoo.

In August 1976 the USA and the Federal Republic of Germany signed an addendum to the 1974 MoU: ‘The Addendum will assure significant stan- dardisation of items that dominate the logistical support of our tank forces, including fuel, ammunition, guns, tracks, engines, transmissions and fire- control. The Addendum envisages both the comparative evaluation of Leopard 2 and XM1 tank designs and the initiation of joint activities neces- sary to introduce these standardisation elements into the respective national programs. It also provides for the possible participation by other NATO nations in these standardisation efforts.’[...]In accordance with the December 1974 MoU a comparative test and evaluation of the Leopard 2 American or Austere Version (AV), was con- ducted between September and December 1976, utilising the same criteria and constraints as used with the two American prototypes. Through the provision of a January 1977 addition to the Addendum to the December 1974 MoU the USA and West Germany agreed that the evaluation of the Leopard 2 (AV) MBT would be used only as a basis for furthering sub- system standardisation between the two tank systems. Among these con- figuration options were the diesel and turbine power packs, tracks and sprockets, metric fasteners, the gunner’s auxiliary telescope, and a turret capable of taking either a 105 mm rifled or a 120 mm smooth-bore tank [...] In the end standardisation between the two tanks, apart from the West German 120 mm tank gun was restricted to common fuel, fire-control modules and metric fasteners and tools at the crew maintenance level. West Germany declared that it could not agree to changes to the Leopard || which would have an impact on cost or production.

So, yes, I believe the Abrams uses metric fasteners. Schierbecker (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

As a former M1 tank crewman (I commanded a tank company in Iraq in 2006), I specifically recall SAE (not metric) wrenches in the tanks' toolkit. I believe there is at best a mix of SAE and metric components, as found in many US-made products (see our automobile industry). To the point of suitability for Ukraine, I think the real issues here are the weight of the tank, the complexity of its maintenance, and its fuel consumption. Vasky22 (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

References

What are the vulnerabilities?

How is it vulnerable? How can this tank get damaged or destroyed, or prevented from completing missions? Please add a list in a new section. Stephanwehner (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The M1 is extremely vulnerable to tactical nukes. A direct hit or near miss will totally disable it. But I wouldn't recommend that. BilCat (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Whether this is the only vulnerabilities, or if there are more, it would be a valuable to address the question in the article. It looks like a significant gap. How can an enemy fight this tank, and win? Stephanwehner (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

At the tactical level, like all western tanks, the armor is thinnest on the top of the turret and underneath the hull. Top attack missiles are effective, as are anti-tank mines. Operationally, the M1 uses fuel at a greater rate than some allies' tanks. Therefore the logistical tail is a vulnerability. At the strategic level, we have a vulnerability in political will, whether to fund the military on schedule or to ensure the quality of our youth for enlistment. Both of these issues impact the maintenance and crew of M1 tanks.

The original M1, prior to the hull-mounted NBC system in use today, did have a small vent system in the left rear of the turret that could be attacked with small arms. That vulnerability went away in the 80s from active units, and across all M1s in use by the late 90s. Vasky22 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine to receive former USMC tanks

The page highlights reference to an article by David Axe in Forbes that the tanks going to Ukraine are former USMC tanks, specifically equipped with the USMC Firepower Enhancement Package (FEP). I believe former USMC tanks had DU armor, and providing M1s with DU armor to a foreign country would be a significant deviatioin from former US policy. Even the Australians got M1s without DU armor. I've only found reference to this in the Forbes article, and have written David Axe for clarification on his source.

I do not know if the FEP could be added to older M1A1s in stock, without significant time and work. I do know that the tanks pictured in some articles as the "M1A1s bound for Ukraine" have US Army-model smoke grenade launchers, but these are readily swapped. The .50 cal mount does seem to look different from Army M1A1s, but I have seen US Army M1A1s equipped with what I believe were USMC variations on the M1A1 mount, complete with a camera for the tank commander. This was at NTC (11th ACR/OPFOR) in the last 5 years or so. Vasky22 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

David Axe replied and linked a different Forbes article that specifically notes that the M1 tanks going to Ukraine will not have DU armor. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/01/27/the-tungsten-m-1-how-ukraines-tanks-will-differ-from-americas/?sh=5fbcf13726b3 I think this should be noted that apparently these USMC M1s didn't have armor the equivalent of the US Army tanks, and that the Ukrainians are getting tanks that are roughly the equivalent of M1A1s sold to Australia and Iraq and Morocco. Vasky22 (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• The US supplying the older M1A1 tanks is covered in the Operators section in the Ukraine entry already. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  first M1s seen in ukraine as of 2 days ago 91.247.180.57 (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  War Update: first Abrams tank seen in the Ukraine was reported lost within two days 2.27.2.54 (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Where are they getting the price per unit?

The linked citations are either extremely outdated (1990) or does not have a price at all. Diator (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

First Abrams destroyed by an enemy was in Ukraine

might want to add that it marks the first time an m1a1 Abrams was destroyed by an enemy Space772 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

False. There some Abrams tanks destroyed in the Gulf War. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

During the Gulf war, I don't think any Abrams were destroyed by the enemy? (It was all friendly fire, breakdowns and subsequent destruction to avoid capture?)

However, In this article, with sources:

Between 2010 and 2012 the U.S. supplied 140 refurbished M1A1 Abrams tanks to Iraq. In mid-2014, they saw action when the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant launched the June 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. During three months, about one-third of the Iraqi Army's M1 tanks had been damaged or destroyed by ISIL

So, plenty of M1A1 seem to have have been destroyed long before Ukraine. (Hohum ^@) 19:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Right, 9 destroyed but by friendly fire including two to prevent capture by enemy in Gulf War [only US service numbers]. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"destroyed" is unlikely to be a correct phrase. "were lost" is more correct phrase I guess because the object is damaged and control over the object is lost - Halfcookie (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"Claimed" to have been destroyed by friendly fire. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Many M1 Abrams were destroyed by enemy action in Iraqi service. Apparently also in Saudi Arabian service. Schierbecker (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Yet Another Abrams Tank Lost to Enemy Fire?

If it is officially confirmed that an M1 Abrams tank was knocked out in the Ukraine, might the article have a section to highlight such a lost? 2.27.2.54 (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove Der Spiegel source

Remove the Der Spiegel source because it cannot be verified. It is under the first sub heading history.

Remove it please. 64.189.18.25 (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The only use of a Der Spiegel source has a dead link but the archived web link works for me. So no reason to remove. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The first occurrence should be removed. There's a failed verification tag next to the cited content. Schierbecker (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2024

Both history and design have content that is not cited and should be removed!or at least have sources for the content if it can be properly sourced. 64.189.18.25 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Question: Do you have sources you'd like to add? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have specifically noticed a typo in the 3rd to last paragraph of the armour section of the abrams gives it 16201 mm of armour. Sidewinderwetrust (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2024

In history under previous development the first two paragraphs have sentences that require citations. 64.189.18.32 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying you want a citation needed tag added or? Shadow311 (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Already done These sentences already have citation needed templates. If you have citations that verify these statement please reopen your request with the references. Jamedeus (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

M-1E3 Abrams Tank Modernization Program

Congressional Report on the M1-E3 modernization program. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12495/2#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20has%20sold,31%20M%2D1%20Abrams%20tanks. 47.198.232.143 (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Include general drawbacks of bustle design? Which section?

An editor recently added, and I condensed, a paragraph that discusses, in a general manner, the limitations and drawbacks of the "bustle with blowout panels" turret. The information seems reasonable enough that I have added Template:Citation needed instead of reverting it entirely, but I still wanted to ask other editors: is it appropriate to include such a generalized design discussion in an article about a specific tank, and if so, in which section? Huntthetroll (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This addition was a load of nonsense, so I removed it. Schierbecker (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you recommend any sources that I should read, in order to better spot such misinformation? Huntthetroll (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

R. P. Hunnicutt, Steven Zaloga, Orr Kelly and Christopher F Foss are some of the best sources on the M1 Abrams. Hunnicutt's Abrams is a bit dry, but has the best technical documentation of the M1's development. Kelly's King of the Killing Zone has the best near-contemporary telling of the story of the M1 development process. Michael Green is a retired tanker; a little less academic, but provides great background. Nicholas Moran (The Chieftain on YouTube) is a former tanker who clears up a lot of misconceptions on YouTube. Richard Ogorkiewicz has two books that might mention bustle ammo storage: Tanks: 100 Years of Evolution and Technology of Tanks ed. 1 & 2. Armor backissues provide a lot of information behind the thinking that went into tank doctrine as well as an occasional nugget from an Abrams program manager. You can find most of these sources on the Internet Archive or in the references list of this article. Schierbecker (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is what Ogorkiewicz says: "From the loader’s point of view the most convenient location for the ready rounds is in the turret bustle and in the US M1, as well as M1A1, almost all of the ammunition is stowed there. Ammunition stowed in the turret bustle can also be easily separated from the crew by sliding doors, as it is in the M1. Moreover, the roof of the bustle can be provided with blow-off panels to vent gases generated by rounds set on fire by a hit and thus prevent a catastrophic build up of pressure within the ammunition compartment (16.4). On the other hand, rounds are more likely to be hit when they are in the turret bustle than lower in the tank. For this reason none are stowed above the level of the turret ring in several tanks, including the British Challenger, the Israeli Merkava and the South Korean Type 88."

So yes, it is more likely that bustle storage will be hit, but its not a sure thing that a HEAT round would penetrate more than two feet of armor and the bilkhead. I'm not sure how well the blowout panels protect the crew from the explosion of stowed HEAT rounds. It's my fair guess that a compromised bulkhead would offer less protection to the crew. Schierbecker (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)