www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Talk:M1 Abrams: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
(47 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|archive_age=270|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Military history
|class= B
|B-Class-1= no <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-2= yes <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-3= yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-4= yes <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-5= yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|Weaponry= yes
|US= yes
|Land-vehicles= yes
|Cold-War-task-force= yes}}
{{WP1.0 |class=B |importance=Low |v0.7=pass |category=Engtech}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:M1 Abrams/Archive index
Line 22 ⟶ 8:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 120K150K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 45
|minthreadstoarchive = 4
|algo = old(270d)
|archive = Talk:M1 Abrams/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Military history |class= C
|B-Class-1= no <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-2= yes <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-3= yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-4= yes <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-5= yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|Weaponry= yes |US= yes |Land-vehicles= yes|Cold-War-task-force= yes}}
}}
{{Top 25 Report|Jan 22 2023}}
{{Annual readership|days=180|scale=linear|color=red}}
 
== metric or customary units? ==
== How much ammo can the secondary guns carry. ==
Can this tank be serviced and repaired in Europe and the rest of the world with metric tools and screws etc.? -- [[User:Espoo|Espoo]] ([[User talk:Espoo|talk]]) 23:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 
: Given how common US bolts and parts are in the US, that seems doubtful to me. But note that Wikipedia is not meant to be a how to manual type of thing per [[WP:NOTGUIDE]]. [[User:Fnlayson|-Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 23:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Can somebody who knows what the ammo count of the machine guns are add it into the secondary tab? (sorry if this is not how "talk" is supposed to be used but this is my first time using talk. Thank you)
 
::My question is an indirect way of pointing out that this article is missing essential info, whether the tank is made with bolts and other parts in metric units or not. This then provides the essential information whether or not it makes sense for other countries to buy or temporarily use this tank or not. --[[User:Espoo|Espoo]] ([[User talk:Espoo|talk]]) 00:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
[[User:Armymac3000|Armymac3000]] ([[User talk:Armymac3000|talk]]) 03:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Armymac3000
:::If other countries are using Wikipedia as a guide to whether or not to purchase or use a certain, then the tank is probably a bad fit for those countries. They should stick with bows and arrows. As to readers, it's just [[WP:Trivia]]. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 00:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
::::You seem to be unaware of the importance and role of Wikipedia in keeping citizens informed and in being empowered to control and criticize political decisions, especially on issues that are decided mostly in secret. Even most journalists first go to WP to check for specifically things like this issue of metric or not or inefficient mix.--[[User:Espoo|Espoo]] ([[User talk:Espoo|talk]]) 09:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 
:Metric vs. imperial was a major point of contention during the [[MBT-70]] project. It rose to the level of SecDef and Defense Minister, who were still unable to resolve the question. I think it deserves a mention. We should probably have a production and maintenance section. I suspect the measurement issue is a major reason why the U.S. says the Abrams is not suited to Ukraine. [[User:Schierbecker|Schierbecker]] ([[User talk:Schierbecker|talk]]) 06:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
== Decisive Lethality Platform... and the weight! ==
::IIRC, most of not all of the U.S. military uses metric now, but I could be wrong. Or, like most of the US, they use a confusing mix of both. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 08:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 
:[[User:Espoo]].
Under the [[Next Generation Combat Vehicle]], in the top section, they mention, as a pending program, the "Decisive Lethality Platform".
 
<blockquote>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.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F. |editor1-link=Christopher F. Foss |title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 1983–84 |publisher=Jane's Publishing Company |location=London |year=1983 |isbn=0-7106-0781-4 |pages= |edition=4th |chapter= |url=https://archive.org/details/janesarmourartil0000unse_t1b0}}</ref></blockquote>
While there is no "official" program at the moment, it has been on the mind of the Army for some time. Furthermore, critics are starting to question the validity of the current M1, since it has 'grown' from 61-tons to current 73.6-tons. AND, were it to add the Israeli "Trophy" system, it would increase its weight by another 2.5-tons!<ref>https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/01/the-m1-abrams-tank-too-fat-to-fight-a-war/</ref> We're getting in the neighbourhood of 80-tons!!!
 
So, yes, I believe the Abrams uses metric fasteners. [[User:Schierbecker|Schierbecker]] ([[User talk:Schierbecker|talk]]) 06:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that a statement or something needs to be added to the "Future Plans" section, to mention that while the 'growth' of the Abrams has made it into one of the World's premier tanks, its current size and weight are becoming problematic on the battlefield. Hence the rise of things like the [[Stryker]] whose Brigades were supposed to be "medium weight" between "heavy armor" units and the regular infantry. This has also given rise to the current search for a new "light tank" in the [[Mobile Protected Firepower]] program.
 
:As a former M1 tank crewman (I commanded a tank company in Iraq in 2006), I specifically recall SAE (not metric) wrenches in the tanks' toolkit. I believe there is at best a mix of SAE and metric components, as found in many US-made products (see our automobile industry). To the point of suitability for Ukraine, I think the real issues here are the weight of the tank, the complexity of its maintenance, and its fuel consumption. [[User:Vasky22|Vasky22]] ([[User talk:Vasky22|talk]]) 17:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
None of the other MBT's fielded around the world weigh anything close to what the Abrams weighs.
 
{{reflist-talk}}
This makes me think of the German Wehrmacht in WWII when the Armoured divisions never fielded the Heavy tanks: Tiger I or later "King" Tiger II. Instead they were placed in separate "Heavy Tank Battalions" that were attached to higher command and "loaned" to the regular Armoured Divisions. Armoured Divisions consisted of "medium" tanks, on both sides, tanks up to around 40+tons.
 
== What are the vulnerabilities? ==
Put simply, the Abrams is not only in danger of falling into this category, I submit that it already '''IS''' a Heavy tank, and is rapidly becoming a "specialized" unit, only to be used in certain terrain and specific situations on the battlefield.
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. [[User:Stephanwehner|Stephanwehner]] ([[User talk:Stephanwehner|talk]]) 19:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 
:The M1 is extremely vulnerable to tactical nukes. A direct hit or near miss will totally disable it. But I wouldn't recommend that. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 20:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing like a heavy tank to take it to the enemy. But battlefields are big, and terrain (and bridges) varies. You lose versatility, and universality... Hence the rise of the Stryker, etc. Japan's very modern and survivable [[Type 10]] accomplishes all of this with weight in mind, coming in at 40, 44 or 48-tons depending on the package of armour applied.
::Thanks. Whether this is the only vulnerabilities, or if there are more, it would be a valuable to address the question in the article. It looks like a significant gap. How can an enemy fight this tank, and win? [[User:Stephanwehner|Stephanwehner]] ([[User talk:Stephanwehner|talk]]) 14:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
:At the tactical level, like all western tanks, the armor is thinnest on the top of the turret and underneath the hull. Top attack missiles are effective, as are anti-tank mines. Operationally, the M1 uses fuel at a greater rate than some allies' tanks. Therefore the logistical tail is a vulnerability. At the strategic level, we have a vulnerability in political will, whether to fund the military on schedule or to ensure the quality of our youth for enlistment. Both of these issues impact the maintenance and crew of M1 tanks.
:The original M1, prior to the hull-mounted NBC system in use today, did have a small vent system in the left rear of the turret that could be attacked with small arms. That vulnerability went away in the 80s from active units, and across all M1s in use by the late 90s. [[User:Vasky22|Vasky22]] ([[User talk:Vasky22|talk]]) 17:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 
== Ukraine to receive former USMC tanks ==
I suggest that there be a paragraph discussing this under the "Future Plans" section, maybe even break-out a sub-section and get into this problem. Also, that the US Army has looked at this repeatedly for at least a decade, but has yet to come up with a workable solution.
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. [[User:Vasky22|Vasky22]] ([[User talk:Vasky22|talk]]) 18:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
James
[[Special:Contributions/202.44.196.204|202.44.196.204]] ([[User talk:202.44.196.204|talk]]) 18:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 
:David Axe replied and linked a different Forbes article that specifically notes that the M1 tanks going to Ukraine will not have DU armor. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/01/27/the-tungsten-m-1-how-ukraines-tanks-will-differ-from-americas/?sh=5fbcf13726b3 I think this should be noted that apparently these USMC M1s didn't have armor the equivalent of the US Army tanks, and that the Ukrainians are getting tanks that are roughly the equivalent of M1A1s sold to Australia and Iraq and Morocco. [[User:Vasky22|Vasky22]] ([[User talk:Vasky22|talk]]) 17:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:If you can find sources substantiating that the weight of the Abrams has become a substantial issue that needs a full paragraph, maybe. As it stands, Wikipedia has to abide by a neutral point of view, and just proclaiming that the Abrams is too heavy for the role of main battle tank seems like editorializing to me.
:* The US supplying the older M1A1 tanks is covered in the Operators section in the Ukraine entry already. [[User:LonelyProgrammerFnlayson|LonelyProgrammer-Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:LonelyProgrammerFnlayson|talk]]) 0019:1703, 119 JulyNovember 20222023 (UTC)
:*:first M1s seen in ukraine as of 2 days ago [[Special:Contributions/91.247.180.57|91.247.180.57]] ([[User talk:91.247.180.57|talk]]) 00:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
:*::War Update: first Abrams tank seen in the Ukraine was reported lost within two days [[Special:Contributions/2.27.2.54|2.27.2.54]] ([[User talk:2.27.2.54|talk]]) 21:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 
== Where are they getting the price per unit? ==
{{reflist-talk}}
 
The linked citations are either extremely outdated (1990) or does not have a price at all. [[User:Diator|Diator]] ([[User talk:Diator|talk]]) 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:An M1A2SF of the Royal Moroccan Army.jpg|An M1A2SF of the Royal Moroccan Army.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-06-20T01:21:33.006751 | An M1A2SF of the Royal Moroccan Army.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:An M1A2SF of the Royal Moroccan Army.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 01:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 
== First Abrams destroyed by an enemy was in Ukraine ==
== "Future" is partially about past ==
 
might want to add that it marks the first time an m1a1 Abrams was destroyed by an enemy [[User:Space772|Space772]] ([[User talk:Space772|talk]]) 18:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
With phrases like "which will begin development in 2015".
 
The: entireFalse. articleThere needssome toAbrams betanks updated/rewritten,destroyed andin bestthe withGulf no "Future" at all to not have such situations in, well, futureWar. [[SpecialUser:Contributions/5.173.113.120Fnlayson|5.173.113.120&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:5.173.113.120Fnlayson|talk]]) 0419:0633, 1027 OctoberFebruary 20222024 (UTC)
 
:: During the Gulf war, I don't think any Abrams were destroyed by the enemy? (It was all friendly fire, breakdowns and subsequent destruction to avoid capture?)
== Random injection of analysis comment ==
::However, In this article, with sources:
: "The U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) conducted a thermal analysis of the M256 from 2002 to 2003 to evaluate the potential of using a hybrid barrel system that would allow for multiple weapon systems such as the XM1111 Mid-Range munition, airburst rounds, or XM 1147. The test concluded that mesh density (number of elements per unit area) impacts accuracy of the M256 and specific densities would be needed for each weapon system[107] "
:: {{talkquote|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}}
This paragraph in the '''Armament, M256 smoothbore gun''' section refers to discussion of finite element modeling parameters and techniques used in modeling and simulating the barrel during analysis of firing and barrel heating. This comment is out of place and has little direct relevance to the section or the armament/ammunition topic without additional explanation. At current it only serves to confuse, I suggest it should either be removed or expanded further. Useful information would include details on the "hybrid barrel system" and what it entailed. The report itself only covers the validity of the analysis technique for matching empirical test data and does not seem to address any particular results on actual gun or ammunition combinations. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/156.68.131.93|156.68.131.93]] ([[User talk:156.68.131.93#top|talk]]) 00:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: So, plenty of M1A1 seem to have have been destroyed long before Ukraine. ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 19:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 
::* Right, 9 destroyed but by friendly fire including two to prevent capture by enemy in Gulf War [only US service numbers]. [[User:Fnlayson|&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 19:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
== metric or customary units? ==
:"destroyed" is unlikely to be a correct phrase. "were lost" is more correct phrase I guess because the object is damaged and control over the object is lost - [[User:Halfcookie|Halfcookie]] ([[User talk:Halfcookie|talk]]) 15:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
"Claimed" to have been destroyed by friendly fire. [[User:Ianbrettcooper|Ianbrettcooper]] ([[User talk:Ianbrettcooper|talk]]) 01:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 
Can::*:Many thisM1 tankAbrams bewere serviceddestroyed andby repairedenemy action in EuropeIraqi andservice. theApparently restalso ofin theSaudi worldArabian with metric tools and screws etcservice.? -- [[User:EspooSchierbecker|EspooSchierbecker]] ([[User talk:EspooSchierbecker|talk]]) 2306:2734, 2028 JanuaryFebruary 20232024 (UTC)
 
== Yet Another Abrams Tank Lost to Enemy Fire? ==
: Given how common US bolts and parts are in the US, that seems doubtful to me. But note that Wikipedia is not meant to be a how to manual type of thing per [[WP:NOTGUIDE]]. [[User:Fnlayson|-Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 23:46, 20 January 2023 (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? [[Special:Contributions/2.27.2.54|2.27.2.54]] ([[User talk:2.27.2.54|talk]]) 21:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
::My question is an indirect way of pointing out that this article is missing essential info, whether the tank is made with bolts and other parts in metric units or not. This then provides the essential information whether or not it makes sense for other countries to buy or temporarily use this tank or not. --[[User:Espoo|Espoo]] ([[User talk:Espoo|talk]]) 00:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
:::If other countries are using Wikipedia as a guide to whether or not to purchase or use a certain, then the tank is probably a bad fit for those countries. They should stick with bows and arrows. As to readers, it's just [[WP:Trivia]]. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 00:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 
== Remove Der Spiegel source ==
:Metric vs. imperial was a major point of contention during the [[MBT-70]] project. It rose to the level of SecDef and Defense Minister, who were still unable to resolve the question. I think it deserves a mention. We should probably have a production and maintenance section. I suspect the measurement issue is a major reason why the U.S. says the Abrams is not suited to Ukraine. [[User:Schierbecker|Schierbecker]] ([[User talk:Schierbecker|talk]]) 06:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Remove the Der Spiegel source because it cannot be verified. It is under the first sub heading history.
::IIRC, most of not all of the U.S. military uses metric now, but I could be wrong. Or, like most of the US, they use a confusing mix of both. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 08:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 
Remove it please. [[Special:Contributions/64.189.18.25|64.189.18.25]] ([[User talk:64.189.18.25|talk]]) 09:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:Espoo]].
 
: The only use of a Der Spiegel source has a dead link but the archived web link works for me. So no reason to remove. [[User:Fnlayson|&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 15:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote>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.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Foss |editor1-first=Christopher F. |editor1-link=Christopher F. Foss |title=Jane's Armour and Artillery 1983–84 |publisher=Jane's Publishing Company |location=London |year=1983 |isbn=0-7106-0781-4 |pages= |edition=4th |chapter= |url=https://archive.org/details/janesarmourartil0000unse_t1b0}}</ref></blockquote>
::The first occurrence should be removed. There's a failed verification tag next to the cited content. [[User:Schierbecker|Schierbecker]] ([[User talk:Schierbecker|talk]]) 16:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2024 ==
So, yes, I believe the Abrams uses metric fasteners. [[User:Schierbecker|Schierbecker]] ([[User talk:Schierbecker|talk]]) 06:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 
== What are the vulnerabilities? ==
 
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. [[User:Stephanwehner|Stephanwehner]] ([[User talk:Stephanwehner|talk]]) 19:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 
:The M1 is extremely vulnerable to tactical nukes. A direct hit or near miss will totally disable it. But I wouldn't recommend that. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 20:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 
{{Edit semi-protected|M1 Abrams|answered=yes}}
== NBC link goes to WMD ==
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. [[Special:Contributions/64.189.18.25|64.189.18.25]] ([[User talk:64.189.18.25|talk]]) 17:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
:[[File:Pictogram voting question.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Question:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Do you have sources you'd like to add? <code><nowiki>'''[[</nowiki>'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> ([[User talk:CanonNi|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/CanonNi|contribs]]) 01:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:I have specifically noticed a typo in the 3rd to last paragraph of the armour section of the abrams gives it 16201 mm of armour. [[User:Sidewinderwetrust|Sidewinderwetrust]] ([[User talk:Sidewinderwetrust|talk]]) 14:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 
== Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2024 ==
Please correct [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:4DB0:7D01:2C4D:F785:B6BC:939E|2A00:23C8:4DB0:7D01:2C4D:F785:B6BC:939E]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C8:4DB0:7D01:2C4D:F785:B6BC:939E|talk]]) 22:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 
{{Edit semi-protected|M1 Abrams|answered=yes}}
:[[Nuclear, biological and chemical]] redirects to [[Weapon of mass destruction]], so changing it would be redundant. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
In history under previous development the first two paragraphs have sentences that require citations. [[Special:Contributions/64.189.18.32|64.189.18.32]] ([[User talk:64.189.18.32|talk]]) 18:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
::I've linked it to [[CBRN defense]]. ([[User:Hohum|<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style="color: Red;">@</sup>]]) 00:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
:::That's probably better! [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 00:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 
:Are you saying you want a citation needed tag added or? [[User:Shadow311|Shadow311]] ([[User talk:Shadow311|talk]]) 18:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
:[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> These sentences already have [[template:citation needed|citation needed]] templates. If you have citations that verify these statement please reopen your request with the references. [[User:Jamedeus|Jamedeus]] ([[User talk:Jamedeus|talk]]) 19:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Yard of damaged and destroyed M1A1M Abrams tanks of Iraqi Army, Camp Taji, June 2020.webp|Yard of damaged and destroyed M1A1M Abrams tanks of Iraqi Army, Camp Taji, June 2020.webp]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2023-01-31T18:07:26.849849 | Yard of damaged and destroyed M1A1M Abrams tanks of Iraqi Army, Camp Taji, June 2020.webp -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yard of damaged and destroyed M1A1M Abrams tanks of Iraqi Army, Camp Taji, June 2020.webp|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 18:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 
== M-1E3 Abrams Tank Modernization Program ==
== Stop being biased and based on POV ==
 
Congressional Report on the M1-E3 modernization program.
There is no such thing as the Islamic State. It is the so-called Islamic State. You know the official name and the abbreviations ISIS and ISIL. So stop being biased and editing with a POV please. [[Special:Contributions/46.31.112.214|46.31.112.214]] ([[User talk:46.31.112.214|talk]]) 06:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12495/2#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20has%20sold,31%20M%2D1%20Abrams%20tanks. [[Special:Contributions/47.198.232.143|47.198.232.143]] ([[User talk:47.198.232.143|talk]]) 09:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M1_Abrams"