Talk:M1 Abrams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M1 Abrams article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Popular Culture

Why does this article lack a pop culture category for this famous tank which has been in a movies, games and other works of media countless times? The M-60 article has such a section. This isn't an encyclopedia for military facts alone.

See WP:MILHIST#POP.--LWF 01:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You've answered your own question. "... countless times", so why bother mentioning them ? It's like trying to mention every time someone used a pencil in a TV show in the pencil article. The tank itself is notable. It's real world history is notable. The fact that it was used in the final level of Call of Duty 4 is trivial (in the context of an article about a tank) and thus not worth including. Megapixie 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And if notice most pages that have or had pop culture articals have had them deleted or people are trying to delte them. only articals such as the Walther PPK can reallly ahve one as it was james bonds gun and made it famous.(ForeverDEAD 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Taiwan?

I don't know how o communite with anybody here. I just arrived for the first time. I just wish to call attention to whoever wrote this report. I thought Taiwan did not order Abrams tanks, but yesterday I saw the SECOND photo in this AP report, http://dwb.fresnobee.com/24hour/world/story/3695409p-13109174c.html suggesting that Taiwan has bought the tanks. Please check. X2flu 16:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)x2flu

Does not look like an M1 Abrams, more like a M60 or something similar. --Denniss 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is without a doubt an M60 variant of some kind. No way an Abrams; completely different turret (with a cupola, not present on an M1), no side skirt, etc. Parsecboy 16:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M1 inferiority before M256 gun and/or depleted uranium armor upgrade

I think it is quite strange, that the most modern US MBT only become superior to (ex-)Soviet tanks (T-64,T-80) by the end of Cold War. On the other hand, the inferior armor and gun power could have been offset by thermal imaging, which the Soviets lacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.168.198 (talk • contribs)

yea good point(ForeverDEAD 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Criticism

I remember reading somewhere that some Marine (Zinni?) felt the Abrams was not a good infantry support tank due to the exhaust going out the rear, endangering infantry hiding there. AThousandYoung 09:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That is true, a consequence of using the gas turbine engine (in fact this very point is mentioned in the article). I'm guessing the Soviet/Russian T-80 would also have this problem. The main disadvantage is that a gas turbine guzzles much more fuel (especially when idling) than a modern 4-stroke diesel engine of the same power output. Lokster 05:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, I think Israel's Merkava would be the best infantry support tank since it can carry troops in the back. The other one would be the Ukrainian BTMP-84, a version of the T-84. As far as I know these are the only two MBTs that can carry infantry. Lokster 00:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're both forgetting that most MBTs aren't designed as infantry support; they're designed to kill other tanks, and that's usually it. The Merkava was a specialized design, based on Israel's unique requirements (i.e., near constant asymetrical warfare, and a much smaller population than her hostile neighbors). Parsecboy 00:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caterpillar track

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how thick the caterpillar track is on an Abrams? (or any modern tank for that matter) I'm guessing its about 5cm, please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks! Lokster 05:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Id love to tell you but sadly i dont no the answer, ill try and do some research though ForeverDEAD 13:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is Popular Culture for tanks already?

Why you chose to not add popular culture to this thing already? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.144.73 (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what wikipedia isn't. It would be nice surely but they get out of hand easily and have every appernce and their mother in their. For there to be a pop culture section it usaly has a reference of how a media outlet seriously impacted this gun. ForeverDEAD 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The updated guideline is at WP:MILMOS#POP. Please read it, and feel free to add encyclopedic information about the subject of this article, supported by reliable references. —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 23:00 Z

Just put Popular Culture for the Tank already or else.(76.247.222.101 05:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC))

Or else...what? Parsecboy 11:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Put it down already. The Tank is featured everywhere including the Transformers.(TougHHead 01:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Did we not just tell you why there isnt? This article is about the TANK not pop culture. The only way it would be included if it was actualy impacting the tank. M1 abramd is important to transformers- Transformers ARNT notable to M1 abrams. Serriously unless theres a major change in the entire wikipedia policy and wikiprojects any attempts will be reverted Jack The Pumpkin King 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Then put up a quote on this article.(TougHHead 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

Most popular culture references are either insignificant, inaccurate, or both. The guidelines are clear, and pop culture does not belong in this article. --Aquesenb (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M1A2 introduction

When did the A2 version enter service? When did the other "further upgrades" mentioned in the article enter service? —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 23:08 Z

1998 (I think) Lokster (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M1A1 Driving controls

I have a Image I took of how they drive the tank, not sure if it could be useful. Here it is see what you can do with it. I have a lot of pics I took while in iraq.

Driving controls
Driving controls
Thats a great pic, upload all you can. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies

there are some inconsistencies in the article whether how many were sold to Australia from US stocks....58 or 59? --MoRsE 12:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The correct figure is 59 M1A1 AIM tanks. There are also 7 Hercules recovery vehicles, 14 tank transporters, 8 fuel trucks, and some simulators for gunnery and driving. Most of the tanks are based in Darwin with the 1st Armoured Regiment. Some others are based at Puckapunyal in Victoria. Lokster (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jihadi Video?

Not sure if it is worth commenting on, but this video seems to show a number a number of M1 wrecks. http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/irak/video/x3gvnn_irak-resistance-destruction-de-char_news Geo8rge 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's really not worth mentioning in the article. Tanks get destroyed in combat. No great shakes; nothing new. The article already discusses this; to the point of having a table of tanks destroyed during the first Iraq War. There is an image of a destroyed Abrams from the second Iraq war. That's enough to illustrate the fact that tanks do in fact get destroyed. Parsecboy 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs Source to Support Allegation that Soviet Tank Auto-Loader is Dangerous

In the Article, there is a little "Requires Source" superscript right after the section which mentions that Soviet Auto-loaders are dangerous to their crews. I do not have a quote to support this, but I know for a fact that sometimes the T-72's auto loader would mistake a sleeve or hand for a round, and pull a crewman's arm into the breech, then close it, thereby cutting off the crewmember's arm. I hope someone can find a source to support this... 70.70.219.147 (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the old tale about carnivorous auto-loaders is an urban legend. I've never actually seen a reliable source make the claim. It really shouldn't be in this article to begin with. Parsecboy (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

https://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/armormag/backissues/1990s/1998/ja98/4sewell98.pdf is a decent source citing the problem with the autoloader. I've seen a video of it in operation, the auto-loader is exposed, so getting clothing caught is potentially possible. OTOH, I doubt many limbs have actually been lost! Pmw2cc (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B-23

In the Operation Desert Storm section, B-23 is linked to and referenced by Image:Summary.gif. When I click on B-23 I expect to get an article on the vehicle or the incident, not a document like this. The document can probably be moved to Wikisource and used as a primary source. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just moved it over to Wikisource here (my first use of Wikiesource, as it were). I'm not sure if I did it right, so if you're more familiar with Wikisource, please take a look at it. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties among crewmembers

Was incident No.4 in the list of disabled or damaged Abrams a case of friedly fire? According to the list, the incident resulted in 1 KIA. If it was not friendly fire, statements in the Iraq War section concerning an attack on 29 October 2003 ("This marked the first time deaths resulted from a hostile-fire assault on the M1 tank from enemy forces") would be incorrect. If the casualties in No. 4 were caused by friendly fire, maybe this should be stated in the list to avoid confusion about when the first death from hostile fire occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PINTofCARLING (talk • contribs) 23:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The table lists casualties in Desert Storm, the 1991 conflict, there really isnt a list as of now for the current conflict. sseagle (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not what he's asking. He's asking whether or not the KIA for Bumper #66 was caused by enemy action or friendly fire. To respond to his question, if you look at the source provided, it shows that it was the 3 DU sabots from other Abrams that destroyed the tank and killed the crewmember. It actually doesn't mention the RPG hits at all. It might be better to remove those until someone can provide a source for stating that that specific Abrams was in fact hit by RPGs. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The source provided states that The first tank destroyed (B-66) initially was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). (Check it out). DagosNavy 00:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I must've missed it. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... when I read that source, I find the following:

"The first tank destroyed (B-66) initially was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG). Shortly after the RPG hit B-66, one or more US tanks fired on it. Four additional tanks rushing to B-66's aid subsequently were fired on and struck too.[362] We know this about the five Abrams tanks damaged in this action"

which to me does discuss the RPG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.115.84.2 (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Please Maintain Operational Security

Photographs of damaged tanks are illegal and are in violation of OPSEC. I found only one picture in this article, and it is debateable as to whether it is a violation or not. However, I ask that you all keep this in mind for future edits. Thanks for the good work so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.127.69 (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First, new comments go on the bottom of the talk page. Second, photographs of damaged or destroyed vehicles are in no way illegal. Also, this website has nothing to do with the US military, so OPSEC rules that govern what members of the military may publish in their blogs in no way apply to us. Thank you for your concerns. Parsecboy (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bulge

Please, what is the purpose of the cylindrical bulge halfway along the barrel? Thank you, Yehudi Okekoky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.104.50 (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a Bore evacuator Megapixie (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I am enlightened once again. Yehudi.