Talk:M1 Abrams

metric or customary units?

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)

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. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2023 (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. --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. 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.--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. Schierbecker (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

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. BilCat (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Espoo.

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.

So, yes, I believe the Abrams uses metric fasteners. Schierbecker (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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. Vasky22 (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

"TM 9-2350-388-10-HR". coursehero.com. Retrieved 22 December 2024. The Hand Receipt for the M1A2 SEP Abrams tank, outlines the Basic Issue Items (BII). --2db (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Where are they getting the price per unit?

The linked citations are either extremely outdated (1990) or does not have a price at all. Diator (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This is correct and still not fixed 6 months later. 123.243.74.178 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yet Another Abrams Tank Lost to Enemy Fire?

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)

Why lol? Does any other tank article have a whole section dedicated to counting single digit losses in one specific war? Why would such a section be important to you? 123.243.74.178 (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

2-12 CAV Abrams

2-12 CAV did not receive M1A2 SEPv4 tanks. Their bravo company went to test them but the unit itself never received them. LP1999 (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Removed. It's an unreliable source anyway. Schierbecker (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

2-12 did send a platoon worth of people to test the v4 at Yuma proving grounds. It's just the unit as a whole never received them, for obvious reasons. LP1999 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

source for m1a2 sep 3rd gen du?

what is the source for the m1a2 sep having upgraded depleted uranium armor? Cay7809 (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Initialism

I don't remember having a full stop when using initialism being the norm on Wikipedia—which itself is already a mess considering different pages uses different English varieties.(Maybe because I don't edit that much in English Wikipedia anyway lol) I see both instances of "US" and "U.S." being used in here. Which one should be used, am I missing something extremely crucial here? Laughable Engine (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:US, "For commonality reasons, use US by default when abbreviating, but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established..." -Fnlayson (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding K1 on variant section?

K1 is designed by same group of engineers who designed the M1 Abrams. Chief Engineer Philip Lett described K1 as M1 Abrams customized for Koreans. (XM1 prototype saga thing is wrong by the way. That XM1 = 1978~1979 M1 Abrams). Kadrun (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

"The South Korean forces are equipped with high quality systems as compared to the North Koreans. The 105mm ROKIT tank is an M1 derivative with a good fire on the move capability." https://www.google.com/books/edition/Department_of_Defense_authorization_for/oewAz6ajak4C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ROKIT&pg=PA57&printsec=frontcover Kadrun (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

• The K1 has its own article at K1 tank and is linked in the "Variants and upgrades" section of this article. Adding more info here may be OK provided it is not too long and detailed. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)