Talk:M1 Abrams/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Questioning Edits

The edit by Muchenhaeser suggest that Sweden has endorsed or is planning to endorse the Abrams, when in fact the Leopard 2 was found superior. Major rephrasing or removal shortly... europrobe 08:21, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)

I think info about the Saudis upgrading their fleet upgraded to M1A2S standard should be added.

" Also tested by Sweden and a number of other nations " was intended to be the start of listing some of the nations that have trialed it, its not a 'endorsement' of it any more then other nations that have done so. As far as their rejection goes, they actually found them quite similair, but the failure of the US to deliver ordered weapons in WWII was a factor. The idea being, that when they most needed the weapons they were not delivered (in this case the US was worried about aircraft in question being captured). Furthermore, the the Swedish leopard 2 differs anyway, as among other refinements, it has a native made armor package. Muchenhaeser 19:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Swedish Leo has been upgraded in several areas, including armour and C2S, but those upgrades would probably have been considered for the Abrams as well. All in all - while similar - the Leo 2 was found superior, and the phrasing of your last edit could be misunderstood for something else (especially since Sweden was listed under "export" and "also used by"). Your present phrasing is better, IMO. europrobe 08:41, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

If equipped with CMC's the operational cost of a M1 unit is about twice as high as that of a Leopard 2 unit. That alone scares off most prospective buyers. USA perforated armour technology is markedly inferior to that of the Germans, the world leaders in this field - so they have no alternative solution to offer. The only non-client states buying M1's have been Saudi-Arabia (if you would qualify it as such) which was denied Leopard 2's and Australia that wanted its MBT's optimized for peace missions and hopes to reduce cost by pampering and isolating the CMC's using the space gained by leaving out all the DU-modules! Which means the frontal armour can be penetrated by even a DM 23 round...

MWAK--84.27.81.59 11:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To both of you- the leo was not found superior (well to the leclerc it was), just that the m1 was more expensive to operate. The difference in armor wasn't important as they replaced it on the leo anyway. Im not sure how perforated armor performs in comparison to other types, but the swedish package is generally regarded as superior to the leo's. Also mwak, the a2 has sold to other countries besides aussie's and saudi arabia; as far as that goes selling to other euros isn't much more of a 'qualifying'.

As for my early point, sweden said Concern over the availability of spare parts and additional tanks in the event of a conflict probably influenced the decision too. In the late 1930's Sweden had ordered fighter aircraft from the United States, aircraft that were not delivered because of the start of hostilities in Europe. Or in other words, when they were needed the most, the US government decided not to deliver the planes....

I love the leo 2 and the 122 both and I actually agree'd with swe choice, but your reasons for why they chose it are fos, save the bit about cost. Muchenhaeser 06:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I admit to having made a more general point: but is it so inconceivable the pretended indigenous Swedish armour system is in reality largely of German origin? And I would hope we aren't ...But perhaps I'm an incurable romantic...However your point about the uncertainty of US-backup in an emergency is a very valid one. One of the reasons the Dutch at the time rejected the M1, was that we were flatly refused a guaranteed share of the materiel reserve in case of war. --MWAK 13:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello, I am a newbie not knowing how to implement a picture so I put it here and you can place it correctly into the article with the right size at the right spot. It was taken in Falouja at Nov. 2004: <img src="http://img24.exs.cx/img24/4506/abrams2vt.jpg" width="550" height="348" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" />

Did you take that picture or get permission from the photographer to include the picture in Wikipedia? --Carnildo 03:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I got that picture from the German Wiki site: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Abrams_Ex.jpg and here is the article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams and it shows that the Abrams is in fact vulnerable. I found pictures of about 58 different M1's, all totally destroyed. So this tank has definitely lost it's myth of being invincible.

FYI: When the M1 blows it blast panels to eject ammo it totally engulfs the tank charing it and blacking it.

-Weps

The picture from the german wiki has been photoshoped, an rather poorly I might add. I would also point out that pictures of destroyed M1's are most likely the work of the US Air Force. When an armored vehicle is disabled either by enemy fire of from a mechanical malfunction and the area is too dangerous to send in a recovery team in for it, the vehicle is destroyed to prevent it from bieng looted. TDC 17:17, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint, the faked picture has been removed now from the article. Nevertheless it is not true that no Abrams ever has been destroyed by other tanks. As far as I know there are only two main battle tanks undefeated: The German Leopard 2 and the Japanese Type 90. At least there are no such pictures. The Japanese and the German tank look quite similar to each other. Therefore the Type 90 is sometimes called the big brother of the Leopard 2: http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/jp_type90.htm

When has an Abrams been destroyed by another tank? --Carnildo 19:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here: http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-2-04/fratricide-2.htm, it took just a simple 25mm Bushmaster cannon http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/m242.htm, firing eight AP-DU rounds to knock out an Abrams. USER

The M1A1 was not knocked out. The engine was destroyed, that turret and basket remained intact. Also I might point out a 25mm DU round is not simple, it's very large and very deadly. This is from the offical report by the DOD and DOA. -Weps

---

I'm quoting Defense Update here:

"the new Russian Kornet ATGW, but further examination revealed that the damage was from a 25mm Bushmaster cannon, firing eight AP-DU rounds into the rear engine compartment penetrating the engine grills. The same report mentioned another M1A2 Abrams damaged by unidentified source, possibly another US tank firing a 120mm round"

It states that an M3 fired several APDS rounds into the engine grill of an M1, disabling the tank. That means the eninge can't run so the tracks can't turm, so the tank is disabled, not destroyed.

--Weps

---

What a ridiculous assertion. Several 25mm SABO rounds fired from an M3 fired into the engine compartment of a Leo 2 or Type 90 would've disabled them as well. SABO rounds aren't quite "simple", they're quite efficient. Virgil61 13:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

SABO? Yout mean Sabot. Yes Sabot rounds are very simple, just like an arrow with mass ammounts of kenetic energy behind it. Only an uneducatedm news junky wouldn't know this. The same goes for HEAT, very simple design.

---

The class comparison seems really unnecessary. It requires a bit of subjectivity that should be minimized in an encyclopedia or an reference.

"There are not many other modern tanks in the Abrams's class; the Leopard II from Germany, the LeClerc from France, the Challenger from the UK, the Type 1990 from Japan and the Merkava from Israel are the only ones that come immediately to mind. The Russian T90 isn't in the same class, neither is the Chinese Type 1998."

If we wish for the reader to realize this, we should allow them to see the facts themselves and draw that conclusion. We should not make that conclusion for them while not giving them any significant data to support that.

Perhaps we should say,

"In comparison, [insert tank 1 and data from tank 1], [insert tank 2 and data from tank 2]... "

Also, "...are the only ones that come immediately to mind" seems very first person. In general, those sentences are unnecessary and only detracts from the rest of article's high quality and objectivity.

---

It seems an Abrams has been destroyed in combat on Apr 10th. look here: [1]

---

I'm confused. Recent news reports on American television made much of the fact that during a battle near Nasariyah, I beleive, the first M1A1 ever was taken out by enemy fire. Two were lost with no casualties. This article claims 18 were lost in the last Gulf War. Which is it? Rmhermen 05:38 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Rmhermen, I don't know the exact details, but there were considered to be zero combat losses of the M1 caused by hostile fire in the last war. There were 9 tanks destroyed, 9 tanks damaged but later repaired. I believe the causes of all those losses were either land mines or friendly fire. In the current war, there have definitely been some M1 loses due to hostile fire. Here [2] was a "golden bullet" that took out a tank, but the Kornet [3] seems to be the main cause of losses. I haven't heard of losing any M-1s to T-72s yet. -º¡º

That Golden Bullet didn't take out the M1, it penetrated it's skirt armor.

--Weps

Do not confuse a picture of a destroyed M1 with destruction by enemy fire. The general procedure for handling an incapacitated M1 MBT is usualy to destroy it, so it cannot be looted or stripped by an enemy. This is most often done with an airstrike. TDC 16:15, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)