tanks/vehicles M1 Abrams (1979)

[pieve 3,578]

 

M1 Abrams

The M1 tank was first seen in Western Europe in late 1982. The firts unit to receive the new tank was the 3rd Infantry Division. US Army

 

Back in October 1973, one event would decisively influence the future of the new American main battle tank: the "Yom Kippur" war in the Middle East. This war involved the largest concentration of tanks in combat since World War 2. After careful investigation of the events occurred during this conflict, the US Army concluded that the emergence of a new order of weapon lethality was dramatically revealed in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973. Facing the nature of this threat, the new US doctrine set as its priority the defense of NATO Europe against a quantitatively superior Warsaw Pact forces of greatly increased lethality. It accepted force ratios as a primary determinant of battle outcomes and argued the virtues of armored warfare and the combined arms team. This notion of stronger inter-service integration would to be introduced as the "air-land battle" concept in 1976, and to result in the AirLand Battle Doctrine in 1982.

 

Overhead view of an M1 tank at speed. The M1 can reach speeds of 45 mph on level ground. General Dynamics

 

The M1 Abrams tank represented a definitive change in US tank design since World War 2, and its design reflects the objective to be an adequate response to the main threat of that era - the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Warsaw Pact in practically everything when it came to conventional weapons. Until the late seventies/early eighties, NATO wouldn't have a MBT powerful enough in the three main basic tank design areas (firepower, protection, and mobility) to provide the necessary tactical superiority on the battlefield in order to compensate for the numerical inferiority.

 

This M1 tank in Wes Germany shows the closed-hatch position of the driver. The theree periscopes mounted to the hatch provide an overlapping field of vision.

 

The way the US Army worked out the development of the new tank was very different than the way the German/American MBT-70 project was approached - instead of trying to build the best tank in the world, they opted for building the best tank within a limited budget. With this perspective in mind, the following directives were established, by order of priority: crew survivability; surveillance and target acquisition performance; first-round and subsequent hit probability; minimal time to acquire and hit; cross-country mobility; complementary armament integration; equipment survivability; crew environment; silhouette; acceleration and desaceleration; ammunition and stowage; human factors; production; operational range; speed; diagnostic maintenance aids; growth potential; support equipment; and transportability.

M1 tanks waiting to attack during maneuvers. The US Army had to develop new tactics to accommodate the advanced mobility of the M1 tank. General Dynamics

 

In its quest for the best possible tank design and subsequent development at the lowest costs, the US Army opted for a competitive process between the Chrysler Corporation (which has built the M-60 series) and the General Motors Corporation (which has built the MBT-70), with allowance for alternative solutions. One of the main requirements was to reduce the unit costs compared to the failed MBT-70 project, and this defined what technologies were or were not to be used in the new tank.

 

In June 1973 contractors were awarded to both the Chrysler Corporation (which has built the M-60 series) and the Detroit Diesel Allison Division of the General Motors Corporation (which has built the MBT-70) to built prototypes of a new tank designated M1, and later named the Abrams tank (after Gen. Creighton Abrams). These tanks were handed over to the US Army for trials in February 1976. In November 1976 it was announced after a four-month delay that the Chrysler tank would be placed in production. Production commenced at the Lima Army Modification Center at Lima in 1979 with the first production tanks being completed in 1980.

 

Armament of the M1 Abrams

The 105mm gun can be seen here outside of the M1 tank turret. The 105mm gun was based on a British designed tank gun. General Dynamics

 

Spoiler

The gunners position of an M1 tank. M1 Gunners are taught to recognize enemy vehicles by their signatures, be it noise or smoke. US Army

Left front view of the inside of an M1 tank, showing both the 105mm gun and loaders seat. General Dynamics

 

 

Leopard 2 A1 and M1 Abrams in the arms market competitors, in action unanimously next to each other

 

M1 Abrams used 105mm M68A1 cannon

 

Spoiler

 

source:

Spoiler

https://www.fichier-pdf.fr/2014/03/17/abrams-a-history-of-the-american-mbt/abrams-a-history-of-the-american-mbt.pdf

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a039673.pdf

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91B00390R000300220014-8.pdf

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by pieve

[blakeob 8,086]

Open for discussion. 

[Capt_Palmtree 377]

And Britain can have the Challenger 1.

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

Hahahaha, No. And same problems as the Osorio suggestion: No armor, No ammo (cause they’re mostly classified). 

 

14 minutes ago, Capt_Palmtree said:

And Britain can have the Challenger 1.

 

We don’t even know what that array looks like, let alone the composition or effectiveness. The ammo is classified too, so again, not going to happen. 

[Nope 10,634]

sounds good, let's just implement the armor and

 

oh wait there is no solid data on 2nd gen composite

 

10 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

Hahahaha, No. And same problems as the Osorio suggestion: No armor, No ammo (cause they’re mostly classified). 

 

 

We don’t even know what that array looks like, let alone the composition or effectiveness. The ammo is classified too, so again, not going to happen. 

 

The ammo used on the L11A5 is possible to estimate. Well, except one, and it just so happens to be the very best round for the CR 1 and the APFSDS that was used by CR 1s during the Gulf War. And no, L26 is not L26A1. Odd that I can estimate CHARM-3 values yet cannot estimate L26A1 values.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Nope

[arczer25 5,202]

for early M1 already starts to be declassified

ammo is bigger problem, but considering that we are already using estimates it shouldn't be that hard.

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

1 minute ago, arczer25 said:

for early M1 already starts to be declassified

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

ammo is bigger problem, but considering that we are already using estimates it shouldn't be that hard.

 

I don’t see any numbers for that, thickness of the layers, nor what those layers are made of. All that literally says is “this is where an armor component is within the tank”. And those documents also neglect the frontal turret array, which is a big part of a tank wouldn’t you say?

[muzzleflash98 1,697]

The title and poll both say "Pre-series", but the only mention of any of the prototypes are that they were sent for trials in 1976. There's no actual information here, just a bunch of pictures and a basic background of the M1's development.

 

There's no mention that both companies made large changes to their tanks through the design process, no pictures of the prototypes themselves, just the production M1.

 

Here's the final GM prototype:

Spoiler

 

And the final Chrysler prototype:

Spoiler

 

They're obviously very different from each other and the production M1, and changed a lot through the design phase. Notice that early in the design phase they both had a Bushmaster autocannon.

 

1 minute ago, arczer25 said:

for early M1 already starts to be declassified

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

ammo is bigger problem, but considering that we are already using estimates it shouldn't be that hard.

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Estimations are a terrible idea. It's way too easy for things to get skewed.

 

(I took so long to write this that I kept getting ninja'd and having to edit )

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

2 minutes ago, muzzleflash98 said:

The title and poll both say "Pre-series", but the only mention of any of the prototypes are that they were sent for trials in 1976. There's no actual information here, just a bunch of pictures and a basic background of the M1's development.

 

You know what’s sad? That most people probably won’t know that and just answer the poll “yes” because the dont actually read the OP and think “muh M1 Abrums!” 

[muzzleflash98 1,697]

Just now, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

You know what’s sad? That most people probably won’t know that and just answer the poll “yes” because the dont actually read the OP and think “muh M1 Abrums!” 

 

I think that's what made me upset enough to keep editing my post.

 

I'm also tired of these suggestions that are long in pictures or 3D models of what the armor "could" look like (I imagine we all know that Leo 2 thread), but are so short in useful information as to be pretty much worthless.

[SGTEAGLE 488]

According to Steven Zaloga's "M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank", the standard ammunition of the M1 and IPM1 (which can also be added to the game as a response to Leopard 2A0-2A1) was the M833 APFSDS-T. According to the book itself it had an estimated penetration of 400mm at 2km on a 60 ° angled target, remembering that it is already an DU ammunition. However, these values may vary, according to "Bob Makenzie Ammo Page" it had a penetration of 480mm at 1km, but does not specify the angle of the target. According to Jake Collins Armor Page the M833 achieved a 420mm penetration at 2km, also not specifying target angulation. If someone knows something else, it can help.

[Tzalafim 695]

41 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

Hahahaha, No. And same problems as the Osorio suggestion: No armor, No ammo (cause they’re mostly classified). 

 

 

We don’t even know what that array looks like, let alone the composition or effectiveness. The ammo is classified too, so again, not going to happen. 

abrams armor is not classified...please google it and you will find its composition.

[Nope 10,634]

19 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

for early M1 already starts to be declassified

 

ammo is bigger problem, but considering that we are already using estimates it shouldn't be that hard.

 

The ammo is a lesser problem since it is easily converted to a single uniform standard. This does not apply to composite armor, whose performance varies greatly depending on the various KE penetrators that may attempt to go through. Could be solid shot, could be any hollow AP, could be uncapped APDS, could be capped APDS with the L28 design, could be the L52 design with the improved cap, could be steel APFSDS of varying hardness values, could be APFSDS similar in design to 3BM-15 and BM-3, could be something like the M735's penetrator, could be monobloc, could be two rods welded together like with 3BM-42, could be DU, could be tungsten, could be American tungsten alloy vs a variety of Rheinmetall's tungsten alloys (US weapon grade tungsten is denser and possibly more brittle due to a simpler alloy), could be any of the previous rounds either jacketed or not. With that many variables to even have something that's not going to upset balance too much, composite armor is already a bad idea in itself, especially 2nd gen. Even if the general layout is given, there's still no information on what specific materials were used or the actual effectiveness values against many kinds of penetrators. It wasn't that big of a deal with WWII armor since everyone used steel and varied only in the properties of said steel that wouldn't affect much in the long run, but composite armor, especially 2nd gen is an entirely different animal.

 

2 minutes ago, SGTEAGLE said:

According to Steven Zaloga's "M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank", the standard ammunition of the M1 and IPM1 (which can also be added to the game as a response to Leopard 2A0-2A1) was the M833 APFSDS-T. According to the book itself it had an estimated penetration of 400mm at 2km on a 60 ° angled target, remembering that it is already an DU ammunition. However, these values may vary, according to "Bob Makenzie Ammo Page" it had a penetration of 480mm at 1km, but does not specify the angle of the target. According to Jake Collins Armor Page the M833 achieved a 420mm penetration at 2km, also not specifying target angulation. If someone knows something else, it can help.

 

Anything that comes from Collin's page is automatically false as his values are not based on any criteria that is accepted. Zaloga's figure here is also completely in the realm of fantasy considering that according to the Lanz-Odermatt equation, there is no way for APFSDS rounds to exceed their own length in penetration at point-blank unless the steel is incredibly bad and/or the velocity far exceeds 2 km/s. Usually I rate the M833 at 380mm point-blank, but the effect it has on composite armor would be different from a tungsten round.

[SGTEAGLE 488]

16 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

The ammo is a lesser problem since it is easily converted to a single uniform standard. This does not apply to composite armor, whose performance varies greatly depending on the various KE penetrators that may attempt to go through. Could be solid shot, could be any hollow AP, could be uncapped APDS, could be capped APDS with the L28 design, could be the L52 design with the improved cap, could be steel APFSDS of varying hardness values, could be APFSDS similar in design to 3BM-15 and BM-3, could be something like the M735's penetrator, could be monobloc, could be two rods welded together like with 3BM-42, could be DU, could be tungsten, could be American tungsten alloy vs a variety of Rheinmetall's tungsten alloys (US weapon grade tungsten is denser and possibly more brittle due to a simpler alloy), could be any of the previous rounds either jacketed or not. With that many variables to even have something that's not going to upset balance too much, composite armor is already a bad idea in itself, especially 2nd gen. Even if the general layout is given, there's still no information on what specific materials were used or the actual effectiveness values against many kinds of penetrators. It wasn't that big of a deal with WWII armor since everyone used steel and varied only in the properties of said steel that wouldn't affect much in the long run, but composite armor, especially 2nd gen is an entirely different animal.

 

 

Anything that comes from Collin's page is automatically false as his values are not based on any criteria that is accepted. Zaloga's figure here is also completely in the realm of fantasy considering that according to the Lanz-Odermatt equation, there is no way for APFSDS rounds to exceed their own length in penetration at point-blank unless the steel is incredibly bad and/or the velocity far exceeds 2 km/s. Usually I rate the M833 at 380mm point-blank, but the effect it has on composite armor would be different from a tungsten round.

I found a document where, if I understood correctly, the M833's penetrator had a speed of 2.4km / s. I may be wrong, but that's what the graph shows. I found a document where, if I understood correctly, the M833's penetrator had a speed of 2.4km / s. I may be wrong, but that's what the graph shows. If you want, I can send the document

Edited November 8, 2017 by SGTEAGLE

[muzzleflash98 1,697]

36 minutes ago, Tzalafim said:

abrams armor is not classified...please google it and you will find its composition.

 

If precise information about it is available via google search (hint: it's not), it's amazing nobody has been able to provide such information 

[Laviduce 1,779]

Various sources for the frontal arc armor protection estimates of the M1/M1A1 and M1A1 HA:

 

CIA estimate:

 

 

M.Green estimate:

 

CIA estimate (supposedly):

 

eSim/Lakowski estimate:

 

 

Rheinmetall presentation estimate:

 

 

AFJ estimate:

 

Zaloga's estimate:

 

 

Soviet estimates of the M1A1 and M1A1HA according to Zaloga:

 

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Laviduce

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

Which version of the M1 is this suggestion even for? The prototypes? First production model?

[kev2go 5,112]

Only if tier 7 becomes a thing. Too good foer tier 6 9.0 b.r/

 

 

MBt 70 is already a good tier 6. ( arguably better than T64A due to being the most mobilile  Main tank in war thunder ,and having AGTMS as a cherry on top)  even if its armor effectivness is not as good as it.

 

Right now this isnt needed.

 

M1 abrams only if  Russia gets T-80BV ,  Germany gets Leopard 2A0  and UK the Challlenger 1.

 

EDit:

 

also  Here it becomes a Slippery slope. gathering info is harder for nato 3rd generation MBts. Whilst were going into Partially declasiffed documents (that give estimate numbers pertinenet to a generic area. ,  gen 1 choboham layout)   , and  Open Sources;  Estimates from Defense Industry Analysis Firms like Janes. 

Edited November 9, 2017 by kev2go

[xX_Lord_James_Xx 2,400]

2 minutes ago, Mercedes4321 said:

Which version of the M1 is this suggestion even for? The prototypes? First production model?

 

The title say "Pre-production", but the OP talks about the original M1.... so basically the answer is neither. 

 

51 minutes ago, Tzalafim said:

abrams armor is not classified...please google it and you will find its composition.

 

here's what I found: 

Spoiler

1. 

("Tank Protection Levels web site" no longer exists, 404 error)

 

2. 

 

3. 

 

If you see a site call the M1 Abrams' armor "Chobham", it's automatically wrong as there is NO SUCH THING! That fact disqualifies sources 1 and 3, which (ironically) leaves site 2 (Wikipedia). The M1 Abrams uses a modified Burlington armor (similar to what's used on the Challenger I), after that, the M1's typically get what's call "HAP" (Heavy Armor Package) which differs from the original Burlington even more. And as is stated in "Below the Turret ring": which means we don't know what the array looks like nor where the materials and components are placed (which have a big affect on the effective armor). So no, we don't know it's composition. 

 

And like @Laviduce posted, the "effective thickness" varies between sources, making it basically impossible to know the real values without a fully declassified document stating exactly where everything is placed, the hardness of the materials, the effect they have on different penetrators (Kinetic and Chemical), etc. 

 

Basically, anything not a primary source is INVALID as a source for composite armor. 

[Mercedes4321 4,695]

8 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

The title say "Pre-production", but the OP talks about the original M1.... so basically the answer is neither.

I think this is the most confused I have been as to the exact topic of a suggestion yet.

[muzzleflash98 1,697]

22 minutes ago, Mercedes4321 said:

I think this is the most confused I have been as to the exact topic of a suggestion yet.

 

I think it's a problem of the OP trying to suggest the M1 without the title saying so. Notice that all the information (what little there is) is for the production M1.

[Nope 10,634]

1 hour ago, SGTEAGLE said:

I found a document where, if I understood correctly, the M833's penetrator had a speed of 2.4km / s. I may be wrong, but that's what the graph shows. I found a document where, if I understood correctly, the M833's penetrator had a speed of 2.4km / s. I may be wrong, but that's what the graph shows. If you want, I can send the document

 

That's not directly related to the M833 though. The first is a chart showcasing the required muzzle velocity for a certain penetration/penetrator length ratio, with different rounds of different material, weight but an L/D of 20 used. The second chart is the required velocity to reach specific penetration numbers for two penetrators of different material and L/D ratios of 10 used. Think of these as ballistic limit charts and not penetration charts, and none of them even reference any specific rounds. If you think about it, there would be no way any L7 or M68 derivative would handle the pressure for the penetrator to reach such speeds, nor would the casing even fit since such a massive spike in pressure would need a much larger propellant charge. The muzzle velocity of M833 is closer to 1450-1500 m/s: a rather standard muzzle velocity. 2400 m/s is the velocity where the respective penetrators would be expected to shatter like how full bore AP in WWII start losing effectiveness at around 1000 m/s.

[Borotovas 4,500]

yes.

[RefrigerRaider 563]

lmao, this is actually being suggested?

[SGTEAGLE 488]

2 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Various sources for the frontal arc armor protection estimates of the M1/M1A1 and M1A1 HA:

 

CIA estimate:

 

 

M.Green estimate:

 

CIA estimate (supposedly):

 

eSim/Lakowski estimate:

 

 

Rheinmetall presentation estimate:

 

 

AFJ estimate:

 

Zaloga's estimate:

 

 

Soviet estimates of the M1A1 and M1A1HA according to Zaloga:

 

 

Which document is this from the CIA, which estimates the MBTs' shields?