HOME | DD

DarkWizard83 β€” XM1 Abrams Main Battle Tank

Published: 2006-06-01 04:58:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 21654; Favourites: 276; Downloads: 636
Redirect to original
Description The original prototype vehicle that led to one of - if not the - most powerful tank in the world, and current backbone of Us armored forces, the M1 Abrams MBT. Born out of the failed German-American MBT-70 project, the XM1 was developed by the
Chrysler Motor Corporation, and in 1978 Chrysler delivered to the Army a sleek, low-silhouette heavy tank that incorporated every major technological feature of the day, including computerized controls and a laser rangefinder.

But the most significant design feature of the new tank was its use of Chobham composite armor on the hull and turret. While the exact nature and composition of Chobham armor remains a closely guarded secret, the evidence suggests that it utilizes a matrix of ceramic armor tiles, layered between the vehicle's internal steel and external armored plating. When a high-velocity projectile - such as a round fired from a tank or an anti-tank missile - hits the armor, the explosion produces a high-velocity jet of gas that shears through the armor plating. In normal armor, this jet of gas - once it had passed through the outer armor - would blast into the hull of the tank, causing irreprible damage and often killing the crewmen inside. However, with Chobham armor's interweaved layers of ceramic composite, the forces that would normally tear into a tank's hull are forced to spread out and dissipate over a much wider area, leaving the inner hull intact. This not to say that Chobham armor renders a tank invincible - any hit will still cause exterior damage, and a powerfiul direct hit could still damage or disable the tracks or sensitive electronic equipment. But it would keep the crew alive, and often protect the tank itself enough to keep fighting.

Another key crew safety feature is the vault-like armored compartment that houses the Abrams' primary ammunition. One of the primary causes of a tank's destruction has not been the direct result of armor-pierecing hits, but the inderict results of those hits ignigting and detonating the tank's munitions. To protect this, a kevlar and steel armored plate seperates the crew from the ammunition store. Same with the tank's fuel supply. Even if the compartments were pierced, and the ammunition or fuel ignited, the protective plates would insulate the crew from explosion and fire.

In combat, the Abrams has proven to be second to none. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, M1s were able to take out Iraqi tanks at distances as long as 4km. Of the nearly 2,000 Abrams to see combat in the conflict, only 18 were ever taken out of service due to combat damage, and none resulted in any crew casulties. In 2003 and onwards during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Abrams again demonstrated a mastery of the battlefield, driving to Baghdad virtually unopposed. However, the Abrams clearly showed its vulnerability to ambush attacks, with a number of M1s severly damaged and disabled from RPGs, and far more frequently by roadside IED bomb traps. However, even when caught in some of the largest IED explosions, crew casualties have so far been astoundingly low, a testament to the M1s protection and survivability.

While no future M1's are planned for production, a number of older models are currently slated for upgrade to current standards over the next few years, and the Abrams will continue to serve with the Us Army and Marine Corps. for mcuh of the century to come.

M1 Abrams Vehicle Stats:
Type: Main battle tank
Manufacturer: General Dynamics Land Systems
First deployed: 1980

Crew: 4
Length: 9.76 m
Width: 3.65 m
Height: 2.88 m
Weight: 61.4 tons

Armor: Classified
Armament, primary: 1 x 105mm M68 rifled tank gun; later models equipped with 120mm M256 smoothbore tank gun
Armament, secondary: 2 x 7.62mm FN-Browning M240 machineguns, 1 x .50-cal Browning M2 BMG machinegun
Ammo stowage, primary: 55 rounds
Ammo stowage, secondary: 11,000 rounds 7.62mm, 1,000 rounds .50-cal

Powerplant: Textron Lycoming AGT1500 1,500hp gas-turbine engine
Max speed: 72 km/h
Max range: 498km

Operators: Australia, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, USA
Related content
Comments: 51

DiamondSeer [2022-09-03 23:35:22 +0000 UTC]

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

ODSThero [2017-09-17 15:13:08 +0000 UTC]

This is the only variant of the Abrams I like, and only for the M68 105mm gun.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Xenanraptor720 [2017-04-25 09:35:26 +0000 UTC]

Makes you wonder what the next generation of new MBTs will bring if this is what the current generation has already.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

zaco21 [2016-11-04 18:47:14 +0000 UTC]

So this is the prototype? Looks cool!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

direwolf46 [2016-06-17 22:54:06 +0000 UTC]

Do we still make m1 s tank crews safe form radiation for fallout zones

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

ZephyrTheFox24 In reply to direwolf46 [2017-09-13 22:02:51 +0000 UTC]

Yes, the hatches on all modern MBTs are meant to protect the crew from chemical/biological/ and fallout from nuclear attacks.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Ren-Okara [2016-02-16 15:48:30 +0000 UTC]

*Sniff sniff* Hey, Smell that?




Smells like a few tons of death headed your way....

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

CptWRogers [2016-01-16 18:46:17 +0000 UTC]

after researching here are the armor densities from what I've found, I'm not 100% sure this is true but it seems logical after estimating the weight.

Armor composition
M1:
hull:260/100/60 F/S/R
turret:250/250/60 F/S/R
Composite armor
M1A1
hull:320/140/105
Turret:410/320/105
Composite armor, but later on reinforced with Depleted uranium.
M1A2 SEP:
Same armor as M1A1 however the armor is reinforced with advanced Depleted uranium reinforced composite armor.

The M1A1 in desert storm also reportedly could stop it's own 120mm APFDS shell on the front, but side armor could not stop the high speed Depleted Uranium dart.

In later versions it's planned for the Honeywell turbine to be replaced with a diesel engine, for more fuel efficency.

Also I should note, the T-72 it's advisary was easily defeated, 1,000 were destroyed in desert storm, with no known M1s lost, except to friendly fire incidents. The T-80, and T-90 all seem to be exactly the same vehicle just with a bit more armor reinfocment, it's strongly argueable between which tank is better, but frankly I think the Abrams beats it.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 2

ODSThero In reply to CptWRogers [2017-09-17 15:11:29 +0000 UTC]

The T72M that the Iraqi Army used was a cheap export model of the T72, using hardened steel armor instead of composite armor, a poor quality auto-loader, and underpowered ammunition. Β A proper T72A or B could easily stand up to and kill an Abrams.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

direwolf46 In reply to CptWRogers [2016-06-17 22:50:38 +0000 UTC]

I think it's tie man

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

battlecruiser006 [2015-12-19 23:33:42 +0000 UTC]

The M18 Hellcat can beat the M1 in a race.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

chloeeuphemissoledad In reply to battlecruiser006 [2016-01-13 04:26:13 +0000 UTC]

But it can barely match the Abram's firepower and overall armour.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

battlecruiser006 In reply to chloeeuphemissoledad [2016-01-13 12:55:42 +0000 UTC]

True but it's still being used though (forgot which country still uses them).

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

chloeeuphemissoledad In reply to battlecruiser006 [2016-01-15 05:52:01 +0000 UTC]

Venezuela, I guess. They have 75 more Hellcats in reserve.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 2

ZephyrTheFox24 In reply to chloeeuphemissoledad [2017-09-13 22:04:09 +0000 UTC]

rip venezuela

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

battlecruiser006 In reply to chloeeuphemissoledad [2016-01-15 14:12:42 +0000 UTC]

I believe so.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

TankFan In reply to battlecruiser006 [2016-05-05 08:59:49 +0000 UTC]

You think a Comet or Cromwell could outrun it?

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

battlecruiser006 In reply to TankFan [2016-05-05 14:57:04 +0000 UTC]

I don't know

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Uponia [2015-12-04 01:13:53 +0000 UTC]

One of the most Iconic MBTs of modern times. it might not be the best with every number on paper (like its British counterpart the challenger 2) but a combination of its strengths and its proven combat record make this tank loved and feared by so many. It can probably destroy any modern tank that's built in Russia today or any tank built in the former USSR (as it has proved during the gulf war where the Iraqis used outdated soviet medium tanks).

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

TempleGuardian [2015-05-22 15:30:51 +0000 UTC]

I have to deny the part "-if not the- (most powerful tank)". It isΒ  one of the most powerful tank, but tanks like the Leopard 2 or the T-90 are better in some points. First, both have a diesel engine insteed a gas-turbine, so they don't make as much heat as the Abram while moving. The Abram has a 120mm L44 canon. The Leopard has a longer 120mm L55 canon, which allowed to destroy a target with more range. The T-90 has 125mm L51 canon and a auto-loader.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 2

Anzac-A1 In reply to TempleGuardian [2016-12-17 05:25:45 +0000 UTC]

Gas turbines can use more fuels, so the Abrams does have that advantage.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

TempleGuardian In reply to Anzac-A1 [2016-12-20 12:10:41 +0000 UTC]

Leopard and T-90 have engines, which can be changed into gasoline engines, so they can use the same, but with lesser heat and more effective in cases, when they don't use top speed.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Anzac-A1 In reply to TempleGuardian [2016-12-17 05:25:15 +0000 UTC]

And What about the Challenger 2, which has suffered 0 losses, even when one was reportedly hit by dozens of RPGs?

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

TempleGuardian In reply to Anzac-A1 [2016-12-20 12:27:35 +0000 UTC]

That doesn't mean much. It's not clear, which kind of RPGs the enemys used. The German Panzerfaust was a good weapon against tanks in WWII but today no tank get hurt by those weapon, because the Panzerfaust can't break the whole armor. The same for high-explosive squash heads.

Also I didn't mention the Challenger 2, because its lower speed and shorter cannon.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Anzac-A1 In reply to TempleGuardian [2016-12-20 20:50:35 +0000 UTC]

I believe they were modern RPGs, not sure the exact type. Point is, one Challenger survived hits from as many as 70 RPGs without being destroyed or disabled.Β 

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

TempleGuardian In reply to Anzac-A1 [2016-12-21 12:06:27 +0000 UTC]

That is a nice score. A usefull tank. But the score shows more how well the crew was trained.

About the RPGs I just found a report about those weapons. I don't want to sound evil or something like that, but the weapon couldn't break the armor. RPG till RPG-26 can't break modern tanks and the next version RPG-27 can only break armor till 600mm - the extra armor of the Challenger 2 has already 300mm -Β  so unless the tracks, the tank should resist the attacks.

But as I said, it show more how well trained the crew was. I remember a report about WW II when Germany attacked France. The French army had the Char B1, which the German forces couldn't destroy with their anti-tank weapons - unless 8,8 canon or a direct hit of a Ju87). But the Germans fired with their weak weapons on those tanks and often, the crews of the Char B1 surrendered, because the sound of the hits scared them.

By the way, I have a book with a picture of a Tiger tank, who got 252 hits and survived. But the report about those hits aren't that impressive: 227 hit by tank rifle - even the Panzerkampfwagen IV could resist that - 14 hits by 5,2 canons - also useless against heavy tanks like the Tiger - and 11 hits 7,62 mm canons - those weapons can be dangerous, when the distance is lower than 50 m.

Additionally I'm far of to say, the Tiger tank was the best tank. It had too many weak points. The T-34 was better during WW II.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Tank-Dragon [2014-12-05 01:18:27 +0000 UTC]

A grey Abrams? very unique

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

TankFan In reply to Tank-Dragon [2016-05-05 09:04:18 +0000 UTC]

Weather resistant paint probibly. Same as on the Chaffee at the Fort DeRussy army museum in Honolulu, Hi

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

SirMauser [2014-10-04 21:36:12 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, we have one of these up on Fort Leonardwood (Though it's not a prototype, it's an earlier version with a 105mm gun I think.)

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Enrico1946 [2013-11-08 13:15:38 +0000 UTC]

DO I see the Atomic Annie on the Back ground ?

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

g-weegee In reply to Enrico1946 [2014-06-23 17:28:14 +0000 UTC]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M65… yes you do.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

M47KingTigerAusfB [2011-05-11 01:41:30 +0000 UTC]

Perhaps, one of the best tanks.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

mobius-118 [2010-12-11 17:13:13 +0000 UTC]

gray abrams?my life is complete

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

BlacktailFA [2009-04-06 13:03:49 +0000 UTC]

Is this a Chrysler XM1? Or a Generl Motors XM1?

The two are VERY different from one another, sharing only a few common elements such as their weapons and the same silhouette.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

TITANOSAUR [2007-12-09 07:19:11 +0000 UTC]

AWSOME! I love the M1 Abrams. its awsome. the king of Tanks.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

RBL-M1A2Tanker [2006-06-09 01:19:45 +0000 UTC]

Hey man, I've got some TUSK pictures from the recent Armor Conference at Knox. The new package for the M1 is rather interesting. I wish I had gotten a chance to get inside and look around though. Didn't have time though unfortunately.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Apoc-OC In reply to RBL-M1A2Tanker [2007-01-13 12:40:05 +0000 UTC]

Not trying hard enough soldier! Drop and give me 40!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

RBL-M1A2Tanker In reply to Apoc-OC [2007-01-14 01:16:13 +0000 UTC]

Not a soldier anymore. Haven't been now for...over a year now. But guess what? DONE!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

battlecruiser006 In reply to RBL-M1A2Tanker [2015-12-19 23:28:27 +0000 UTC]

I have had people in my family tree that were in the service in two wars Korea and US Civil war.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

silentnight745 [2006-06-03 22:22:33 +0000 UTC]

I think the 2 battles in iraq say which tank is better.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

700pss [2006-06-03 13:08:44 +0000 UTC]

He he, looks like you got an open forum on who's got the biggest tank!

Have to say that one British Tommy, with a SMLE in one hand an a cup of tea in the other, would wop the lot of ya girlie tanks! Who needs ten ton of reactive armour when you got a tin helmet and a wooly cardigan?

Nice picture by the way

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Samurai69 [2006-06-01 08:26:11 +0000 UTC]

How say my friend... He was tank driver in the army.
"In Abrams nice to be in arms. But be on the war is better on T-72".
Abrams has wery weak barrel mount. One shot and it can't fight. But it more comfortable .

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 2

RBL-M1A2Tanker In reply to Samurai69 [2006-06-09 01:18:18 +0000 UTC]

There is NO tank on the planet that doesn't have a weak mount for the barrel. Hit the barrel and it can't fight. Not ONE tank has a 'super' barrel that can't be taken out. Besides, you don't aim for the barrel.

And what's this about it being more comfortable? It's cramped as hell. Maybe slightly roomier than a 72, but not by a whole lot.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

TankFan In reply to RBL-M1A2Tanker [2016-05-05 09:08:40 +0000 UTC]

lol, what do you mean not aim for the barrel? If it only takes one shot, then... (hint. try to hit the barrel.)
No, really if you hit the barrel the gun is not out of action. For example, if you hit it 1/3rd down it may snap it clean off.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

RBL-M1A2Tanker In reply to TankFan [2016-05-05 21:37:58 +0000 UTC]

Don't waste your time trying to shoot for the barrel.Β  You don't have time for that on the battlefield.Β  Always aim center mass of your target.Β  Think about it.Β  What's easier to track?Β  The thick area of the hull?Β  The large turret?Β  Or the very narrow barrel that can move up and down and side to side?Β  Always aim center mass, right between hull and turret.Β  Then you take out the entire tank, not just the main gun.Β 

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Wisker In reply to Samurai69 [2006-06-01 09:23:39 +0000 UTC]

They aren't even in the same class. One SABOT and the T-72 would no longer be around.
Though they aren't actually meant to take the Sovist Tanks on one on one. Easier to produce simpler to maintain. Therefore an Abrams would end up being overwelmed by the number of them.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Samurai69 In reply to Wisker [2006-06-01 09:50:27 +0000 UTC]

In 2003 on the Kubinka russian tankodrome was simulated fight between 4 Abrams (2000year of build) and 3 T-80 (1999year of build). In the Abramses was US crew.

Score was 4-0 for Russian T-80 in the virtual fight and victory.
This frase was said there.
US officers was confused.

Anyway crew in a bad tank have more chances against bad crew in the good tank.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 2

RBL-M1A2Tanker In reply to Samurai69 [2006-06-09 01:16:29 +0000 UTC]

I'd like to see some documentation on that. Not just your word. It's nothing personal, I just want to actually see the commentary for this supposed 'simulated fight' you say took place.

Plus, as Wisker said, the T-80 is NOT the T-72. They're not even the same model design. Plus you don't have US officers driving and fighting the tank. At most, you have ONE officer.

I think your info is off.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Samurai69 In reply to RBL-M1A2Tanker [2006-06-09 06:35:54 +0000 UTC]

I realy try to find docs about this.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Wisker In reply to Samurai69 [2006-06-01 20:27:34 +0000 UTC]

The T-80 is not the T-72.
In terms of average crew quality the US would be way ahead. The Russian Army has been a conscript one for years.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0