Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

The M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT) is the namesake of the late General Creighton W. Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and commander of the 37th Armored Battalion. It is the backbone of the armored forces of the United States military, and several of US allies as well. The purpose of this vehicle is to provide mobile firepower for armored formations of sufficient capability to successfully close with and destroy any opposing armored fighting vehicle in the world, while providing protection for it's crew in any conceivable combat environment. It is capable of engaging the enemy in any weather, day or night on the multi-dimensional, non-linear battlefield using its firepower, manuever, and shock effect. The Abrams Tank System synchronizes its high tempo, distributed manuever via its digitized situational awareness and the fusion of onboard and remote battlefield sensors.

The Army made the decision for a new tank series in 1972 and awarded developmental contracts in 1973. The first prototypes of the M1, known as the XM1, reached the testing stage in 1976, and the tank began to arrive in battalions in February 1980. The M1 enjoyed a low silhouette and a very high speed, thanks to an unfortunately voracious gas turbine engine. Chobham spaced armor (ceramic blocks set in resin between layers of conventional armor) resolved the problem of protection versus mobility. A sophisticated fire control system provided main gun stabilization for shooting on the move and a precise laser range finder, thermal-imaging night sights, and a digital ballistic computer solved the gunnery problem, thus maximizing the utility of the 105-mm. main gun.

Assembly plants had manufactured more than 2,300 of the 62-ton M1 tank by January 1985, when the new version, the MlA1, was approved for full production. The MlA1 had improved armor and a 120mm. main gun that had increased range and kill probability. By the summer of 1990 several variations of the M1 had replaced the M60 in the active force and in a number of Army Reserve and National Guard battalions. Tankers had trained with the Abrams long enough to have confidence in it. In fact, many believed it was the first American tank since World War II that was qualitatively superior to Soviet models.

Production of M1A1 tanks for the US Army is complete. Over 8,800 M1 and M1A1 tanks have been produced for the US Army and Marine Corps, and the armies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Production of new M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks is in its final phase for Foreign Military Sales. Egypt has purchased 777 M1A1 tank kits. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia purchased and fielded 315 M1A2 Abrams tanks in the Royal Saudi Land Forces. The Government of Kuwait purchased and fielded 218 M1A2 Abrams tanks in the Kuwaiti Land Forces. All of these nations are considering additional orders or configuration upgrades.

Three versions of the Abrams tank are currently in service the original M1 model, dating from the early 1980s, and two newer versions, designated M1A1 and M1A2. The M1A1 series, produced from 1985 through 1993, replaced the M1’s 105mm main gun with a 120mm gun and incorporated numerous other enhancements, including an improved suspension, a new turret, increased armor protection, and a nuclear-chemical-biological protection system. The newer M1A2 series includes all of the M1A1 features plus a commander’s independent thermal viewer, an independent commander’s weapon station, position navigation equipment, and a digital data bus and radio interface unit providing a common picture among M1A2s on the battlefield.

In lieu of new production, the Army is upgrading approximately 1,000 older M1 tanks to the M1A2 configuration. The Army also initiated a modification program for the M1A2 to enhance its digital command and control capabilities and to add the second generation forward looking infrared (FLIR) sights to improve the tank's fightability and lethality during limited visibility. This system enhancement program will be fielded in the 2000 time frame concurrently with the M2A3 Bradley and other advanced digital systems. The initial M1A2 fielding to the First Calvary Division, Ft. Hood, TX, is underway. The Army will continue to field M1A2s to the CONUS contingency corps and other first to fight units.

  M1/IPM1   M1A1   M1A2
Length: 32.04 FT   32.25 FT   32.25 FT
Width: 12.0 FT   12.0 FT   12.0 FT
Height: 7.79 FT   8.0 FT   8.0 FT
Top Speed: 45.0 MPH   41.5 MPH   41.5 MPH
Weight: 60 TONS   67.6 TONS   68.7 TONS
Armament: 105 MM   120 MM   120 MM
Crew: 4   4   4

The M1 series tank is equipped with a 1500 horsepower Lycoming Textron gas turbine engine coupled to an Allison hydrokenetic transmission with four forward and two reverse gears. It's tactical crusing range is approximately 275 miles. Despite it's weight, the M1 can attain a top speed of nearly 45 miles per hour. The main armament is a 120mm smooth bore cannon, which replaced the 105mm gun on the initial M1 version. It has day/night fire on the move capability which is provided by a laser range finder, thermal imaging night sight, optical day sight, and a digital ballistic computer. Both the fuel and ammunition are compartmented to enhance survivability. The hull and turret are protected by advanced armor similar to the Chobam armor developed by the British Ministry of Defense. When required, the Abrams may be fitted with "reactive armor" to thwart armor-defeating munitions.

The M1 Abrams tank, weathered considerable criticism and, in fact, began from the failure of a preceding tank program. The standard tanks in the Army inventory had been various models of the M48 and M60, both surpassed in some respects by new Soviet equipment. The XM803 was the successor to an abortive joint American-German Main Battle Tank-70 project and was intended to modernize the armored force. Concerned about expense, Congress withdrew funding for the XM803 in December 1971, thereby canceling the program, but agreed to leave the remaining surplus of $20 million in Army hands to continue conceptual studies.

For a time, designers considered arming tanks with missiles for long-range engagements. This innovation worked only moderately well in the M60A2 main battle tank and the M551 Sheridan armored reconnaissance vehicle, both of which were armed with the MGM51 Shillelagh gun launcher system. In the late 1960s, however, tank guns were rejuvenated by new technical developments that included a fin-stabilized, very high velocity projectile that used long-rod kinetic energy penetrators. Attention centered on 105-mm. and 120-mm. guns as the main armament of any new tank.

Armored protection was also an issue of tank modernization. The proliferation of antitank missiles that could be launched by dismounted infantry and mounted on helicopters and on all classes of vehicles demonstrated the need for considerable improvement. At the same time, weight was an important consideration because the speed and agility of the tank would be important determinants of its tactical utility. No less important was crew survivability; even if the tank were damaged in battle, it was important that a trained tank crew have a reasonable chance of surviving to man a new vehicle.

The Army made the decision for a new tank series in 1972 and awarded developmental contracts in 1973. The first prototypes of the M1, known as the XM1, reached the testing stage in 1976, and the tank began to arrive in battalions in February 1980. The M1 enjoyed a low silhouette and a very high speed, thanks to an unfortunately voracious gas turbine engine. Chobham spaced armor (ceramic blocks set in resin between layers of conventional armor) resolved the problem of protection versus mobility. A sophisticated fire control system provided main gun stabilization for shooting on the move and a precise laser range finder, thermal-imaging night sights, and a digital ballistic computer solved the gunnery problem, thus maximizing the utility of the 105-mm. main gun.

Although fielded in 1980, the Abrams remained untested for over 10 years. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, there were concerns that the Abrams would fall victim to the sand and long months of continuous operation without the luxury of peacetime maintenance facilities. There were also doubts about the combat survivability of the extensive turret electronics. Immediately following President Bush's decision to commit US forces to the Gulf region in defense of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, American armored units began the difficult process of relocating to the threatened area. Due to the shear size and weight of the Abrams, the C-5 Galaxy, the largest cargo aircraft in the US Air Force inventory, was only able to handle one tank at a time. This meant that nearly all of the Abrams tanks deployed in the Gulf War were shipped by cargo ship. Although slow in coming, the arrival of the Abrams was much welcomed by Allied forces, as it is capable of defeating any tank in the Iraqi inventory.

The Iraqi Army had a considerable array of tanks, mostly purchased from the former Soviet Union. Chief among these were about 500 T-72's. These modern Soviet tanks were armed with an excellent 125mm smoothbore weapon and had many of the same advanced features found on the Abrams. Despite it's advanced design, the T-72 proved to be inferior to the M1A1's deployed during the Gulf War, and compared more closely with the older M60A3 tanks used there by the US Marine Corps. In addition, Iraq had a number of earlier Soviet models: perhaps as many as 1,600 T-62 and about 700 T-54, both of which were developed in the 1960's. These tanks were widely regarded as clearly inferior to the Abrams, but were expected to be highly reliable mechanically. The Gulf War provided military tacticians with an opportunity to evaluate developments in tank design that had not been available since World War II.

In his book "Desert Victory - The War for Kuwait", author Norman Friedman writes that "The U.S. Army in Saudi Arabia probably had about 1,900 M1A1 tanks. Its ability to fire reliably when moving at speed over rough ground (because of the stabilized gun mount) gave it a capability that proved valuable in the Gulf. The Abrams tank also has… vision devices that proved effective not only at night, but also in the dust and smoke of Kuwaiti daytime. On average, an Abrams outranged an Iraqi tank by about 1,000 meters." The actual numbers of Abrams M1 and M1A1 tanks deployed to the Gulf War (according to official DOD sources) are as follows: A total of 1,848 M1A1 and M1A1 "Heavy Armor" (or HA) tanks were deployed between the US Army and Marine Corp (who fielded 16 M1A1's and 60 M1A1(HA) tanks).

As the Gulf War shifted pace from Operation Desert Shield to Operation Desert Storm, and the preparatory bombardment lifted, U.S. Abrams tanks spearheaded the attack on Iraqi fortifications and engaged enemy tanks whenever and wherever possible. Just as they had done in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi Army used it's tanks as fixed anti-tank and artillery pieces, digging them into the ground to reduce target signature. However, this also prevented their quick movement and Allied air power smashed nearly 50% of Iraq's tank threat before Allied armor had moved across the border. After that the Abrams tanks quickly destroyed a number of Iraqi tanks that did manage to go mobile.

The Abrams' thermal sights were unhampered by the clouds of thick black smoke over the battlefield that were the result of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight. Such was not the case with the sights in the Iraqi tanks, which were being hit from units they could not even see. Concerns about the M1A1's range were eliminated by a massive resupply operation that will be studied for years as a model of tactical efficiency.

During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.


1 posted on 08/19/2004 8:47:05 PM PDT by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Travis McGee; Cannoneer No. 4; blam; rdb3; Squantos; Lazamataz; dead; Dog; Shermy

We need a tanker ping, cannoneer No.4!

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

2 posted on 08/19/2004 8:48:25 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack

My cousin a Staff Sgt. E-6 in the 1st Armored Div. he was in Bagdad and he likes the M1A2 because of the heavy armor!


3 posted on 08/19/2004 8:54:47 PM PDT by Sgt. Pile E-6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack
Thanks for the post. All great thoughts on the subject. I don't see any brass or GM big wig wanting to upgrade an M-60! We could field an urban terrain (light tank) vehicle that wouldn't lessen the M1 tank killer role.

Any takers to what caliber that tungsten shot is?

13 posted on 08/19/2004 9:16:06 PM PDT by endthematrix (Christians: Are you a day trader or are you investing for the long haul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack

I had a co worker that was an M-1 Tank Driver and he spilled the beans on the top speed of the M-1 in hard packed desert floor, it was not 45mph. If its NOT a top secret mention the real speed.


18 posted on 08/19/2004 9:22:22 PM PDT by agincourt1415 ("Unfit for Command"at your Local Bookstore Soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack
The first thing I'd do is check the date of manufacture and where cable harnesses were done?

I worked at a place that bid for some of these jobs and I can tell you that some sloppy work was shipped.

I tried going to the line leads, then tried going to the owners and finally risked going to mil spec.

I'd check the harnesses for being watertight (all were supposed to be tested and only 1 out of 100 actually were), I check for proper materials such as braiding (either having it or having the proper size), I'd check for shill tape which wasn't put on certain legs of the harnesses and is supposed to help protect the wiring from being detected by radar.

Using some for spare parts was a pretty good idea. jmo

I used to wire and assemble cable harnesses for the M1 tank and I saw a lot of garbage get passed through.

26 posted on 08/19/2004 9:35:46 PM PDT by ET(end tyranny) (For our borders, there is no hope on the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack; B4Ranch

Ping on the M1A1 replcement - interesting.


27 posted on 08/19/2004 9:39:07 PM PDT by Happy2BMe (JOHN KERRY is as much like the WORKING MAN as WHOOPIE GOLDBERG is to GEORGE W. BUSH! - Vote BUSH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack

whoa. I mean, what an article!!


29 posted on 08/19/2004 9:42:32 PM PDT by GeronL (Viking Kitties have won the GOLD MEDAL in the 2,000 meter ZOTTING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack
The problem with all this is that our needs are diverging. What is needed are TWO different types of vehicle; one an MBT and the other an urban fire support platform.

The urban fire support platform could be based on the M-1 in terms of armor and chassis. The main gun could be replaced with something more appropriate for the anti-personnel role (something with a much higher rate of fire) and gatling cannons could be added.

As for the MBT role, a new type altogether needs to be developed that includes improvements such as:

1.) lower profile (turret-less?)

2.) better performing armor.

3.) fully automatic main gun (auto-loading and case ejection).

4.) Better drive system able to better withstand light explosive attack.

5.) A perimeter defense gatling cannon (say, 7.62mm) operated remotely from inside the vehicle. Ammunition cassettes would be automatically loadable.

Trying to combine roles in one asset is a classic 'European-style' attempt to save money. Stellar examples include the failed concept of the "Battle Cruiser" (British) or the French "Maginot line". These 'cost-saving' measures support the old adage that you get what you pay for; they don't work. IMHO.
61 posted on 08/19/2004 10:43:45 PM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack
Addendum:

For the urban fire support platform, a dozer blade specially designed for clearing junk (road blocks) would be handy.
63 posted on 08/19/2004 10:48:43 PM PDT by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack

To see this kind of ignorance on display is very sad.


99 posted on 08/20/2004 1:47:13 AM PDT by exnavy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Old Sarge

Sarge, did you see this article? Neato.


101 posted on 08/20/2004 6:15:14 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (kerry and the RATs can't stand facts or truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack; Cannoneer No. 4; Arrowhead; SLB

Hey, Folks, just a few observations...

The M1 Series does what it's designed to do - engage enemy armor with overmatch range, firepower, and accuracy - but turning it into an infantry-killer might not be such the great thing.

All the add-on goodies we've discussed make for a great Swiss Army knife, but there are limits to what the vehicle can do. Ammo for all these gadgets has to be stowed someplace, and if anyone's ridden one, a tank's interior can get real crowded, real fast. Changing the gunner's coax, for instance: the ammo storage is rigged for 7.62; changing it to a .50 cal means less base load, or expand the ammo room.

An autoloader? The Soviet tanks have them. And we all knew to aim for the turret ring, to get a one-shot turret-launching catastrophic kill. Stories I heard coming out of Aberdeen indicate that the autoloader tended to load the crew, along with the round. Further, the turret has to be swung back to 000 azimuth, for the autoload to function; meaning that, during a fight, you had to slew the gun away from where the enemy was, to reload. With a man loading, the gunner/TC can keep the weapon trained on the enemy while the round's getting up.


103 posted on 08/20/2004 6:46:57 AM PDT by Old Sarge (ZOT 'em all, let MOD sort 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack

shot-through-their-bow BUMP!


168 posted on 10/01/2004 1:50:54 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack
Bttt.

5.56mm

170 posted on 10/30/2004 5:04:42 PM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Southack

Improvements for the M1.

1. Driver has rear view camera with night image intensifier.

2. Loader has a cammera with 360 degrees viewing and with night image intensifier.

3. 50cal on A2 and SEP are agian operational from within the tank and under armor. NO MORE FLEX MOUNT. The new 50cal should be the M3 electric 50 cal as on the OH58 and Avenger systems. This means that the gun is charged and cycles etc all at the push of a button. The Old periscope is digitized and runs into the new screen in the tank so that the old periscope is not needed and the TC can see good and easily. Again, the sight needs a night image intensifier.

4. Ballistic skirts need to run the whole length of the tank.

5. The APU needs to go outside again and more fuel needs carried as on the older M1A1. Range and duration is always good.

6. The fuel system needs to use a nitrogen fire suppression system (Push the O2 out) so that the JP8 which don't ignite easy to begin with is even less flamable.

7. Since were going all the way and mobility is out the window anyway with the additional balistic skirts we might as well add more armor. Forget air transportability at this point, but we could up armor selected areas that have been statistical weak spots.

8. ADD AN ACTIVE AND PASSIVE DEFENSIVE COUNTERMEASURE SYSTEM! Not of great use against RPGs in Iraq, but very much needed against enemies with highly capable ATGM threats.

9. Add hardhat bomblet protection so that DPICM type munitions are less capable against the M1.

10. Replace the APG1500 with the LV100! Stay turbine since it's hands down the best answer, but just go to a newer and better design.

Red6


171 posted on 10/30/2004 5:19:26 PM PDT by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson