Jump to content


Photo

The M1 Abrams - A History

m1 abrams history m1a1 m1a2 blowing stuff up in style

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Parker203

Parker203

    Platoon Lead

  • Leutenant
  • 209 posts
  • LocationGO WALES GO!

Posted 26 June 2014 - 05:31 AM

Just to warn you all, I hate being serious. I even get told off in college when I write very sarcastically in my assignments. If you hate reading something about somehting that isn't super duper serious then this is not for you, though most of it is whatsername. Just so you all know, the latest version of Abrams that I believe can be implemented can be the M1A2. After this you decide what wepaon of war I will do next. In any case, enjoy. I had fun doing this. 

 

The M1 Abrams, despite having been developed in 1980, is still the Main Battle Tank of the United States. Because the MBT-70 was just too expensive the Germans opted out of the development. It was decided that ‘Murica would design a tank of their own, as the M60 Patton was deemed too old and obsolete for the advancement of warfare, especially against the brand spanking new T-80s, which probably would bitch slap them into oblivion.

 

The first prototype of the Abrams was the XM803. while sounding awesome, it is just the prototype. This prototype was being undertaken just before the MBT-70 project was cancelled, as ‘Murica seemingly doesn't have the money to spend on a defence budget like that. The successful technologies of the MBT-70 were moved into the XM803 whereas the technologies that proved too problematic were left out or improved upon. Despite improvements, it still had similar characteristics to the M60, which, like stated earlier, would get bitch slapped into oblivion. In 1971, the MBT-70 project was cancelled and so therefore all the funds that would have otherwise been used on that, was instead referred to the XM803 which was later on renamed the XM1 Abrams, named after a famous General. The first prototypes were eventually completed in 1976 which carried the licenced British proven Royal Ordnance Rifled L7 105mm gun. The Chrysler Defence design was chosen over the General Motors design, and was then put into development under the name of the M1 Abrams. The Chrysler Defence design had a turbine powered engine which had the uncanny ability to guzzle fuel like a fat kid guzzles food at McDonalds. Between 1979 and 1985, a total of over 3,000 M1s were produced, with the tank entering service in 1980. In 1984 an upgraded version called the M1IP was briefly produced which came in just before the introduction of the M1A1. The few upgrades were a slightly modified turret with thicker armour at the front with 894 built for the US and some for Canada. The M1A1 was then introduced which had the brand spanking new Russian killing Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore gun, however the US version called the M256, uses a spring coil recoil system instead of the hydraulic system. This gun is of the 44 calibres, while the 55 calibre version won’t be used on any Abrams, even the M1A2 for reasons that I do not know. In any case, each unit (overall about 9,000 tanks) cost about $4.30 million each. By 1999, the tanks totaled about $5 million per unit due to more advanced technology and so on.

 

However, the tank was criticised because of its low fuel efficiency and very high cost in comparison to other tanks of the time, such as the Leopard 2 and the Challenger 1 (best tank in the world (except the Chally 2)), and the problems were never solved. Alongside the M60a3, it took parts in exercises to prepare in case a real war actually happened. Because if the soviet made T-72s, T-80s and T-90s rolled into West Europe, they want to know what to do, otherwise they would be annihilated with extreme violence. Because of this, most of the training took place in Europe and especially West Germany where most of the fighting would have taken place if war did ever break out, which thankfully, it didn't as we might possibly be royally screwed. They also took place in South Korea in case of a breakthrough of soviet forces from North Korea, which kind of happened many many years before. However, by 1991 the cold war was all but over so instead they were stationed in the Middle East which would later be used in the Persian Gulf War.

 

Until the Persian Gulf War, the Abrams had never truly been combat tested in a war, as if they did, it would be with the soviets and after that there probably would be no Abrams to speak of. During Operation Desert Storm, 1,848 M1A1s were used during the conflict. While fighting, it was found to be far superior to the T-55s and T-62 tanks as well as the T-72 tanks which was possibly very feared until we realised at how easy it was to turn them into nothing more that blood decorated burning pieces of junk. The main problem with the soviet era tanks is that they didn’t use any modern night vision and rangefinder equipment which put them at a huge disadvantage during night battles and ranged combat. They did use infrared systems and floodlights, but that would have tended to give their position away, probably screaming “COME AND GET ME!” and was probably greeted by a dozen 120 mm shells. Out of all of the Abrams used, 14 were damaged, and 9 destroyed and with proper US doctrine, 7 of those destroyed were by friendly fire, and 2 were destroyed to prevent capture by enemy forces. Also, these small amounts of losses to enemy fire helped because of the extreme ranges that they could engage at, which was well over 2,500 metres, which was well over that of the soviet made tanks, which could only effectively engage at 2000 metres. In desert operations, that is a massively huge advantage, as the landscape is generally flat up to many many kilometres and things tend to get deaded to death when faced against something that outranges them dramatically. In friendly fire incidents, the front armour and side turret armour could even take hits from APFSDS rounds and survive without difficulty, but the side and rear armour and rear turret didn’t hold up as it was penetrated multiple times. This proves that while their tanks are extremely tough, they will always find a way of destroying them. During Desert Shield and Desert Storm, M1IPs and M1A1a were modified in theatre.

 

Since it was now time for a newer version, the M1A2 was introduced. It was a huge leap forward, introducing a commander’s independent thermal viewer, a weapons station, position navigation equipment, a set of controls and displays that is all linked to a digital data bus and an improved fire control system.

 

The M1A2 SEP (System Enhanced Package) implanted digital maps and FBCB2 capabilities. The FBCB2 is a system that allows the commander to have situational awareness on the battlefield by having real time information about enemy and friendly vehicle locations on a map like screen, allowing the commander to make far batter judged decisions. The package also included a better cooling system to better cool off all the new equipment in the vehicle as it generates quite more heat. By 1987 and onwards, all M1A1 and later variants would receive depleted uranium armour, which although very heavy (it is 1.7 times denser than lead), it is incredibly hard, adding incredible protection against anti-tank weaponry. Earlier variants of M1A1s got a system overhaul which restores them to near new condition to save them from being retired from service, which is good as it would be a shame to get rid of thousands for perfectly good tanks.

 

With the Iraq war, the Abrams now saw a chance to get into conflict again. From 2003 to 2005 80 Abrams tanks were taken out of action due to enemy intervention. One example of a tank battle was between multiple T-72s in a skirmish of under 50 metres, with 7 knocked out with no Abrams lost. However, due to that the Abrams would have to be used to kill things in urban environments, crews were given AT-4 rocket launchers as the main gun would usually not be able to wing around with all the buildings in the way, something most tanks seemingly have problems with. As a way to not kill each other again, Abrams were given combat identification panels which produced a very identifiable infrared signature. Some tanks had a storage bin on the rear which allowed crews to carry more supplies and personal belongings, quite possibly a teddy bear.

 

Some Abrams that could not be recovered were simply destroyed, sometimes by other Abrams. Some Abrams in action were destroyed by AT rockets that hit the tracks and immobilising them, being hit in the rear and top armour which all of you know is the weakest parts of the tank that all designers seem to forget about. Somehow, some were taken out of action when struck by heavy machine guns…somehow. However, most of the Abrams that were taken out were by IEDs which are difficult to find and can be as powerful as you can make it, such as adding a few heavy shells to it. By the end of 2006, over 530 units were taken back to the US for repairs most of which, for some reason which I will never know, were not caused by friendly fire.

 

Because of the realities of the tank in urban combat, the TUSK (Tank Urban Survival Kit) which adds armour to the side and rear armour to greatly improve protection, especially from RPGs. Despite this, technology to kill the thing that was designed to protect the thing before the thing that was designed to kill it will always catch up, and an M1 was reportedly damaged by an RPG-29 which uses a tandem charge. This is a 2 staged explosive which explodes the reactive armour, thereby allowing the HEAT charge to get to the armour unhindered. It was also cleverly designed to beat composite armour. The US considered it a high threat and refused to allow the Iraqi army to buy it, lest some be captured by insurgents.

 

The Abrams, despite being in wars before, has seen very limited service in Afghanistan, with some 15 going along with a company of 115 US marines.

 

It has been reported that an M1A3 is in the works. The main problem of the Abrams is that it is heavy, and I mean REALLY f***ing heavy. As of now it weighes about 72 tonnes, and they are planning to reduce that somehow to 60 tonnes while enhancing the armour but making the armour lighter, but the planned lighter 120 mm gun will help as well. It will also include a next gen advanced networking capability and added road wheels to improve suspension, long range precision armaments and infrared camera and laser detectors. Because who doesn’t like blowing stuff up in a 60 tonne tank in style? The new computer will replace the currently used traditional cabling with fibre optic cables, that will somehow be able to take off two tonnes. How can a bloody computer system have 2 tonnes of copper wiring? Prototypes are expected to be tested this year and fully enter service by 2017. The Abrams is expected to serve well until 2050, which by that point I am guessing countries will have simply infantry weapons capable of turning the Abrams into tinned food, a delicacy for terrorists.

 

Now then, we all know what sparks our interest in tanks that ISN’T the gun! And that is the armour! The armour is the British Chobham armour, because the US knows that when the Brits make stuff, it’s good stuff. Chobham is composite armour. The estimated front turret thickness against HEAT rounds is up to 1,620 mm of RHA (basically steel) armour, or up to 960 mm against kinetic energy penetrators. Reactive armour will also greatly increase protection against HEAT rounds, that is, unless it is the RPG-29. The inside is lined with Kevlar as to protect the crew against spalling which is what HESH is specifically designed to do. In comparison, the King Tiger has 150 mm of frontal hull armour and 180 mm in the late turret armour. Like mentioned earlier, after 1987 all Abrams had depleted uranium but although it is 1.7 times denser than lead, it is incredibly hard. Just this layer increased the effective armour of up to 610 mm of RHA equivalent. Even at close range other Abrams tanks that tried their best to kill each other were unable to penetrate even the side armour with “Silver Bullet” APFSDS rounds, even when one tried to kill an abandoned one intentionally as it was stuck in the mud. It also took multiple direct hits from Lion of Babylon tanks while presumably laughing in their face then blasting them to bits.


  • pkozukova likes this
Student, no money, no experience in making games, PHD at nothing

#2 Justind92

Justind92

    Sergeant

  • Chief Engineers
  • 77 posts
  • LocationHorn Lake, MS

Posted 30 June 2014 - 11:33 PM

Haha my favorite TANK lol. Great Job Bro!!!!


Justin DeGraw - 22Years Old-

Community Manager - Forgotten Star -

Steam: JustinD92

Twitter: jdegraw92

Instagram: jdegraw92 

xHtKcEMUoBkneAcB.jpg

onezerobinary.png?game=defiance


#3 nikolay

nikolay

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 165 posts

Posted 01 July 2014 - 06:21 AM

Excellent article indeed! Can't wait for next update with other war equipment


  • Justind92 likes this

#4 toni112007

toni112007

    Soldier

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 11 August 2014 - 02:06 PM

Abrams is outdated tank and needs to get new variant.

It can easily be destroyed by rocket system on T-90 Russian tank.



#5 Zandatsu

Zandatsu

    Sergeant

  • Chief Engineers
  • 107 posts
  • LocationCoventry, United Kingdom

Posted 11 August 2014 - 09:30 PM

Abrams is outdated tank and needs to get new variant.

It can easily be destroyed by rocket system on T-90 Russian tank.

From where i've looked apparently there won't be any Abram upgrade's until 2017. Also why do you think the T 90 can easily kill it? 


techsigv2fx8.png


#6 toni112007

toni112007

    Soldier

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:01 AM

From where i've looked apparently there won't be any Abram upgrade's until 2017. Also why do you think the T 90 can easily kill it? 

 

T-90 to my knowledge, latest variant posses rocket system which can penetrate over 1000 mm of steel, that means it can easily penetrate Abrams even from a mile.



#7 pkozukova

pkozukova

    Community Manager

  • Administrators
  • 195 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:56 AM

T-90 to my knowledge, latest variant posses rocket system which can penetrate over 1000 mm of steel, that means it can easily penetrate Abrams even from a mile.


Can you post a picture of T-90, so we can see it :)

#8 Zandatsu

Zandatsu

    Sergeant

  • Chief Engineers
  • 107 posts
  • LocationCoventry, United Kingdom

Posted 12 August 2014 - 12:29 PM

T-90 to my knowledge, latest variant posses rocket system which can penetrate over 1000 mm of steel, that means it can easily penetrate Abrams even from a mile.

The Invar M the T 90 use's can penetrate up to 900m, the only place an M1A2 could survive a hit from that is the front and maybe the turret (if they are VERY lucky). Makes me wonder why the Russians are hell bent on replacing it. also Pkozukova here's the 2 variants the Russians use.

T 90A: The normal version in service

tl08.jpg

 

T 90AM: The more advanced version.

T-90%2527s+Latest+Avatar-1.jpg


techsigv2fx8.png


#9 pkozukova

pkozukova

    Community Manager

  • Administrators
  • 195 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 12:39 PM

The Invar M the T 90 use's can penetrate up to 900m, the only place an M1A2 could survive a hit from that is the front and maybe the turret (if they are VERY lucky). Makes me wonder why the Russians are hell bent on replacing it. also Pkozukova here's the 2 variants the Russians use.

T 90A: The normal version in service

tl08.jpg

 

T 90AM: The more advanced version.

T-90%2527s+Latest+Avatar-1.jpg

Thanks for the pictures. It looks impressive :)


  • toni112007 likes this

#10 toni112007

toni112007

    Soldier

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 02:39 PM

The Invar M the T 90 use's can penetrate up to 900m, the only place an M1A2 could survive a hit from that is the front and maybe the turret (if they are VERY lucky). Makes me wonder why the Russians are hell bent on replacing it. also Pkozukova here's the 2 variants the Russians use.

T 90A: The normal version in service

tl08.jpg

 

T 90AM: The more advanced version.

T-90%2527s+Latest+Avatar-1.jpg

 

Most advanced T-90 MS Tagil has improved turret, has new composite armor as well as built-in Relikt modular explosive reactive armor (ERA).

It provides protection against tandem warheads and reduces penetration of APFSDS rounds by over 50%. There is also a Shtora-1 countermeasures system, which significantly reduces the chance of being hit by enemy anti-tank guided weapons with semi-automatic guidance. T-90MS is armed with new 125-mm high-accuracy smoothbore gun. This gun has increased range of fire over the previous weapon. It fires APFSDS, HE and HE-Frag rounds. The Tagil also fires "9K119 Refleks" (NATO designation AT-11 Sniper) anti-tank guided missiles in the same manner as ordinary munitions. Refleks has range of about 4000 meters and has penetration of about 750-950mm RHA. Can Abrams survive that?


  • pkozukova likes this

#11 Parker203

Parker203

    Platoon Lead

  • Leutenant
  • 209 posts
  • LocationGO WALES GO!

Posted 12 August 2014 - 07:01 PM

You are forgetting that the Abrams uses the British Chobham armour with a lining of Depleted Uranium in between. It is over twice as hard as super hardened steel and it is a composite armour, and it uses a LOT of it. Composite armour practically makes HEAT useless against it is most cases. You would have more chance of damaging it with Kenetic Penetrators, however I do think the missile could penetrate the side and rear.

 

I am not sure, I will have to research, however I am pretty certain against the front the missile would just act as a "Hi, I'm here!"


  • pkozukova and toni112007 like this
Student, no money, no experience in making games, PHD at nothing

#12 Zandatsu

Zandatsu

    Sergeant

  • Chief Engineers
  • 107 posts
  • LocationCoventry, United Kingdom

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:53 PM

Toni make no mistake I believe the the T 90 is better than M1A2. The only 21st century upgrade the Abrams had gotten was TUSK and 80% of that upgrade would be useless in a conventional war. Abrams is highly overrated but is still a good tank, the best tanks in the world at the moment is the T 90MS, K2 Black Panther and the Type 10 in my opinion.


techsigv2fx8.png


#13 pkozukova

pkozukova

    Community Manager

  • Administrators
  • 195 posts

Posted 29 August 2014 - 12:56 PM

Parker,

 

What do you think about the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV), which is an American fighting vehicle platform manufactured by BAE Systems Land and Armaments, formerly United Defense. It was named after U.S. General Omar Bradley.

 

1BFV01.jpg

 

The Bradley is designed to transport infantry or scouts with armor protection while providing covering fire to suppress enemy troops and armored vehicles. There are several Bradley variants, including the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and the M3 Bradley cavalry fighting vehicle. The M2 holds a crew of three: a commander, a gunner and a driver, as well as six fully equipped soldiers. The M3 mainly conducts scout missions and carries two scouts in addition to the regular crew of three, with space for additional TOW missiles.



#14 Parker203

Parker203

    Platoon Lead

  • Leutenant
  • 209 posts
  • LocationGO WALES GO!

Posted 29 August 2014 - 09:43 PM

Parker,

 

What do you think about the Bradley Fighting Vehicle (BFV), which is an American fighting vehicle platform manufactured by BAE Systems Land and Armaments, formerly United Defense. It was named after U.S. General Omar Bradley.

 

1BFV01.jpg

 

The Bradley is designed to transport infantry or scouts with armor protection while providing covering fire to suppress enemy troops and armored vehicles. There are several Bradley variants, including the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and the M3 Bradley cavalry fighting vehicle. The M2 holds a crew of three: a commander, a gunner and a driver, as well as six fully equipped soldiers. The M3 mainly conducts scout missions and carries two scouts in addition to the regular crew of three, with space for additional TOW missiles.

The Bradley is indeed a fantastic weapon platform. It is more mobile than the Abrams, and its TOW missile can destroy most armoured vehicles with ease. It is cheaper and the ability to carry troops as well as support them is definitely a war winner. It might not be as impressive as the Hind it terms of armour, speed and firepower but you still don't want to be hit with the M242 25 mm Bushmaster chain gun.

 

Some think the M3 is the improved version. It isn't. The M3 is classed as a scout or recce vehicle, and carries more ammunition for its cannon (same one as the M2) and more TOW missiles (12 as opposed to 7).

 

Overall, excellent vehicle, killed more tanks in the Gulf War than any other AFV and only lost 3 due to enemy fire (as opposed to the 17 by friendly fire....just wow America, just, wow).


  • pkozukova likes this
Student, no money, no experience in making games, PHD at nothing

#15 Zandatsu

Zandatsu

    Sergeant

  • Chief Engineers
  • 107 posts
  • LocationCoventry, United Kingdom

Posted 30 August 2014 - 11:46 AM

The Bradley is a great IFV. I think the US should go with the turretless Bradley to replace the M113 (Instead of that Tracked Stryker abomination.) 

 

About friendly fire. America is just plain awful when it comes to it, I have seen videos with bombs dropped on friendly positions by the US and another one where an american A 10 pilot broke engagement protocols to quickly engage the Taliban only to shoot at is allies. I don't think I need to go into how a patriot SAM shot downed a British tornado...


  • pkozukova likes this

techsigv2fx8.png


#16 Darth Vader

Darth Vader

    Platoon Lead

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 05:01 PM

Heh germans... smart move. Have you noticed how german tank Leopard use Rheinmetal 120mm gun? Then Israeli tank Merkava IV also use Rheinmetal 120mm, and M1 Abrams as well! That mean you can make your own tank, no problem, but you have to use german gun and thats just the most important part of every tank :P I wonder how much they made profit from it, because i doubt USA and Israel payed license to produce that gun, they import right?


The truth is only point of view. It all depends on your point of view. Try to get a better understanding of things before you make your judgement.

#17 the_prophet1987

the_prophet1987

    Platoon Lead

  • Leutenant
  • 121 posts

Posted 15 October 2014 - 01:00 PM

Guys about armor penetration i have to say s@it happens.There was a chally 2 in the second Iraqi war 2003 that got hit by 14 RPGs and a Milan Launcher and it didn't got penetrated.And the other chally 2 at 2006 got hit by RPG 29 at the underbelly,that's what the article says and the crew was badly injured.I mean how many chances are for a missile to hit that spot and penetrate it,not many.It is a weak spot but it's "slanted" if i spell the word correctly.So if it is got to happen it's got to happen that's what i say.

Btw good article Parker 203 i would like to see the Merkava history if you have the time. ;)


  • pkozukova likes this

#18 Parker203

Parker203

    Platoon Lead

  • Leutenant
  • 209 posts
  • LocationGO WALES GO!

Posted 15 October 2014 - 01:38 PM

Guys about armor penetration i have to say s@it happens.There was a chally 2 in the second Iraqi war 2003 that got hit by 14 RPGs and a Milan Launcher and it didn't got penetrated.And the other chally 2 at 2006 got hit by RPG 29 at the underbelly,that's what the article says and the crew was badly injured.I mean how many chances are for a missile to hit that spot and penetrate it,not many.It is a weak spot but it's "slanted" if i spell the word correctly.So if it is got to happen it's got to happen that's what i say.

Btw good article Parker 203 i would like to see the Merkava history if you have the time. ;)

Sure thing, once I finish off the M2 Bradley and the IS series I shall get to work on the Merkava

 

And I know that I promised the the M2 Bradley will be up soon about 3 thousand years ago, but University a tad difficult


  • the_prophet1987 likes this
Student, no money, no experience in making games, PHD at nothing

#19 pkozukova

pkozukova

    Community Manager

  • Administrators
  • 195 posts

Posted 15 October 2014 - 01:48 PM

Sure thing, once I finish off the M2 Bradley and the IS series I shall get to work on the Merkava

 

And I know that I promised the the M2 Bradley will be up soon about 3 thousand years ago, but University a tad difficult

Don`t worry Parker, I know it worths the wait :)



#20 pkozukova

pkozukova

    Community Manager

  • Administrators
  • 195 posts

Posted 20 November 2014 - 03:20 PM

Here is something interesting: http://hackaday.com/...irth-of-a-tank/







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: m1, abrams, history, m1a1, m1a2, blowing, stuff, up, in, style

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users