This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
M1 Abrams article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 270 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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. [1]
So, yes, I believe the Abrams uses metric fasteners. Schierbecker ( talk) 06:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
References
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 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)
The linked citations are either extremely outdated (1990) or does not have a price at all. Diator ( talk) 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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
"Claimed" to have been destroyed by friendly fire. Ianbrettcooper ( talk) 01:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
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 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
01:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
M1 Abrams article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 270 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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. [1]
So, yes, I believe the Abrams uses metric fasteners. Schierbecker ( talk) 06:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
References
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 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)
The linked citations are either extremely outdated (1990) or does not have a price at all. Diator ( talk) 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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
"Claimed" to have been destroyed by friendly fire. Ianbrettcooper ( talk) 01:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
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 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
'''[[
User:CanonNi]]'''
(
talk|
contribs)
01:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)