HOME | DD

Description
date of existence: 1972

creator: Chrysler Defense (now General Dynamics Land Systems)

engine: Honeywell AGT1500 multi-fuel turbine engine
1,500 shp (1,120 kW)

fuel capacity: 504.4 US gallons (1,909 L)

armaments: M1: 105 mm L/52 M68A1 rifled gun (55 rounds), M1A1: 120 mm L/44 M256A1 smoothbore gun (40 rounds),
M1A2: 120 mm L/44 M256A1 smoothbore gun (42 rounds)

users: Delta force, us army

At the time, the Pentagon's procurement system was beset with problems being caused by the desire to have the best possible design. This often resulted in programs being canceled due to cost overruns, leaving the forces with outdated systems, as was the case with the MBT-70. There was a strong movement within the Army to get a new design within budget to prevent the MBT-70 experience from repeating itself. For the new design, the Army stated the unit cost was to be no more than $507,000 in 1972 dollars (equivalent to $3,280,000 in 2021).[22]

Through the period while the initial prototypes were being built, a debate broke out between Germany and US about the use of the 105 mm gun. The Army was planning on introducing several new types of ammunition for the 105 that would greatly improve its performance, notably, the XM-774 using depleted uranium. These rounds would give it the performance needed to defeat any Soviet tank with ease. There was some concern that depleted uranium would not be allowed in Germany, perhaps just in peacetime, so improvements to the tungsten cored M735 were also considered.

Through this same period, there was an ongoing effort to improve NATO logistics by standardizing ammunition to the maximum possible degree. The Germans were moving ahead with their 120 mm gun on the Leopard 2K, and noted that the British had also introduced a 120 mm gun of their own in keeping with their long-range combat doctrine.

Through the 1960s the US Army and Bundeswehr had collaborated on a single design that would replace both the M60 tank and the Leopard 1 . The overall goal was to have a single new design with improved firepower to handle new Soviet tanks like the T-62 , while providing improved protection against the T-62's new 115 mm smoothbore gun and especially high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds.[10] [ failed verification]
The resulting design, the MBT-70 , incorporated new technologies across the board. A hydropneumatic suspension provided improved cross-country ride quality and also allowed the entire tank to be raised or lowered by the driver. New 1,500 hp (1,100 kW) engines powered the designs which could both reach 43 miles per hour (69 km/h). The American version used a 152 mm gun whose primary long-range weapon was the Shillelagh missile .[10]
While the design was highly capable, its weight continued to grow, as did its budget. By 1969, the unit cost stood at five times the original estimates, causing the Department of Defense to suspend the program.[11] Development of the tank continued on an austere basis until 19 tera’ jar wa’ 0070, when the DoD and Germany ended their partnership.[12]
The U.S. Army began work on an austere version of the MBT-70 called the XM803 . The Army's changes were insufficient to allay concerns about the tank's cost.[13] Congress canceled the XM803 in 19 tera’ jar wa’maH cha’ 0071 but permitted the Army to reallocate remaining funds to develop a new main battle tank.

By 1977 the decision had been made to eventually move the new tank to a 120 mm gun. After head-to-head testing between the Royal Ordnance L11A5 and the Rh-120, the latter was chosen and later type-classified as the M256. The turret designs of the two prototypes were modified to allow either gun to be fitted. Although the L11/M256 120mm gun was chosen to be the main weapon of the Abrams in 1979, the improved ammunition for the gun still was not fully developed, thus delaying its fielding until 1984.[24]

The early production versions of the M1 Abrams (M1 & IPM1) were armed with the M68A1[25] for two reasons. First was due to the large number of M60 tanks with the M68E1 gun still in widespread US service in the 1980s and a large on-hand stockpile of 105mm munitions. Fitting the M1 with the M68A1 gun was viewed as an economical and practical solution that allowed for commonality in ammunition among the two types of tanks.[26] Secondly was that the M68A1 could employ the newly developed M900 APFSDS[citation needed] depleted uranium round that had improved penetration performance in comparison to the M774.

Earlier U.S. military vehicles, used from World War I through the Vietnam War , used a scheme of "olive drab", often with large white stars. Prototypes, early production M1 (105 mm gun) and M1-IP models switched to a flat forest green paint scheme. The large white insignia stars have also transitioned to much smaller black markings. Some units painted their M1s with the older Mobility Equipment Research and Design Command (MERDC) 4-color paint scheme but the turn-in requirements for these tanks required repainting them to overall forest green. Therefore, even though a large number of the base model M1s were camouflaged in the field, few or none exist today.
M1A1s came from the factory with the NATO three color camouflage Black/Med-Green/Dark-Brown Chemical Agent Resistant Coating (CARC) paint jobs.[ citation needed] Today, M1A1s are given the NATO three color paint job during rebuilds. M1s and M1A1s deployed to Operation Desert Storm were hastily painted desert tan . Some, but not all, of these tanks were re-painted to their "authorized" paint scheme. M1A2s built for Middle Eastern countries were painted in desert tan. Replacement parts (roadwheels, armor skirt panels, drive sprockets, etc.) are painted olive green, which can sometimes lead to vehicles with a patchwork of green and desert tan parts.
Australian M1A1s were desert tan when delivered but have undergone a transition to the Australian Army vehicle standard 'Disruptive Pattern Camouflage'; a scheme that consists of black, olive drab, and brown.[91] [ self-published source?][92]
The U.S. Army can equip its Abrams tanks with the Saab Barracuda camouflage system , which provides concealment against visual, infrared, thermal infrared, and broad-band radar detection.

In 19 tera’ jar Soch 0073, representatives from Chrysler and General Motors traveled to the United Kingdom, and were escorted by personnel from the Ballistic Research Laboratory and XM1 Project Manager Major General Robert J. Baer to witness the progress of British developed Chobham armor .[93] They observed the manufacturing processes required for the production of Chobham armor, which was an arrangement of metal plates, ceramic blocks and open space;[36] and saw a proposed design for a new British vehicle utilizing it.
HEAT and sabot rounds enter the beginning layers of armor but are unable to penetrate the crew compartment. Ceramics have the ability to absorb a great deal of heat, and can blunt physical blows by cracking and deflecting the force. The remaining hot gasses and metal shrapnel spread out or settle in empty air pockets. Both contractors reevaluated their proposed armor configurations based upon the newly obtained data.[20]
This led to major changes in the General Motors XM1, the most prominent of which is the turret front changing from vertical to sloped armor. The Chrysler XM1 on the other hand retained its basic shape although a number of changes were made. The Ballistic Research Laboratory had to develop new armor combinations in order to accommodate the changes made by the contractors.[20]
Similar to most other main battle tanks, the M1 Abrams feature composite armor only on the frontal aspect of the hull. However, the Abrams' turret features composite armoring across both the front and the sides. In addition, the side skirts of the frontal half of the hull are also made of composite, providing superior ballistic protection against chemical energy munitions such as HEAT rounds. The composition of the Abrams' composite armor consists of sandwiched plates of non-explosive reactive armor (NERA) between conventional steel plates. The NERA plates feature elasticity, allowing them to flex and distort upon perforation, disrupting the penetrating jets of shaped charges and providing more material and space for a kinetic round to pass through, thus providing increased protection compared to conventional steel armor of similar weight.[ citation needed] For the M1 Abrams base model, Steven Zaloga estimates the frontal armor at 350 mm vs armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) and 700 mm vs high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead in the book, M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982–1992 (1993).[94] In M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural (2009), he uses Soviet estimates of 470 mm vs APFSDS and 650 mm vs HEAT for the base model Abrams. He also gives the Soviet estimates for the M1A1, 600 mm vs APFSDS, and 700 mm vs HEAT.[95]
Armor protection was improved by implementing a new special armor incorporating depleted uranium and other undisclosed materials and layouts.[36] This was introduced into the M1A1 production starting 19 tera’ jar wa’maH 0088. This new armor increased effective armor particularly against kinetic energy rounds [96] but at the expense of adding considerable weight to the tank, as depleted uranium is 1.7 times denser than lead .[97]
The first M1A1 tanks to receive this upgrade were tanks stationed in Germany. US-based tank battalions participating in Operation Desert Storm received an emergency program to upgrade their tanks with depleted uranium armor immediately before the onset of the campaign. M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well.[98] This variant was designated as the M1A1HA (HA for Heavy Armor).[99]
The M1A1 AIM, M1A2 SEP and all subsequent Abrams models feature depleted uranium in both the hull and turret armor.[100] Each Abrams variant after the M1A1 have been equipped with depleted uranium armor of different generations. The M1A1HA uses first generation armor, while the M1A2 and M1A1HC use second generation depleted uranium. The M1A2 SEP variants have been equipped with third generation depleted uranium armor combined with a graphite coating. The M1A2C also features increased physical line-of-sight turret armor.[101]
For the M1A1HA, Zaloga gives a frontal armor estimate of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT in M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982–1992, nearly double the original protection of the Abrams.[99] In M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural, he uses different estimates of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 700 mm vs HEAT for the front hull and 800 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT for the front of the turret.[95] The protection of M1A2 SEP is a frontal turret armor estimate of 940–960 mm vs APFSDS and 1,320–1,620 vs HEAT, glacis estimate of 560–590 mm vs APFSDS and 510–1,050 vs HEAT, and lower front hull estimate of 580–650 mm vs APFSDS and 800–970 vs HEAT. The M1A2 3 tera’ jar Hut 2023 increased the LOS thickness of the turret and hull front armor; total armor protection from this increase is not known.[102]
In 1998, a program was begun to incorporate improved turret side armor into the M1A2. This was intended to offer better protection against rocket-propelled grenades more modern than the baseline RPG-7. These kits were installed on about 325 older M1A2 tanks in 2001-2009 and it was also included in upgraded tanks.[103]
The Abrams may also be fitted with explosive reactive armor over the track skirts if needed (such as the Tank Urban Survival Kit)[104] and slat armor over the rear of the tank and rear fuel cells to protect against ATGMs . Protection against spalling is provided by a kevlar liner.

Description
date of existence: 1972

creator: Chrysler Defense (now General Dynamics Land Systems)

engine: Honeywell AGT1500 multi-fuel turbine engine
1,500 shp (1,120 kW)

fuel capacity: 504.4 US gallons (1,909 L)

armaments: M1: 105 mm L/52 M68A1 rifled gun (55 rounds), M1A1: 120 mm L/44 M256A1 smoothbore gun (40 rounds),
M1A2: 120 mm L/44 M256A1 smoothbore gun (42 rounds)

users: Delta force, us army

At the time, the Pentagon's procurement system was beset with problems being caused by the desire to have the best possible design. This often resulted in programs being canceled due to cost overruns, leaving the forces with outdated systems, as was the case with the MBT-70. There was a strong movement within the Army to get a new design within budget to prevent the MBT-70 experience from repeating itself. For the new design, the Army stated the unit cost was to be no more than $507,000 in 1972 dollars (equivalent to $3,280,000 in 2021).[22]

Through the period while the initial prototypes were being built, a debate broke out between Germany and US about the use of the 105 mm gun. The Army was planning on introducing several new types of ammunition for the 105 that would greatly improve its performance, notably, the XM-774 using depleted uranium. These rounds would give it the performance needed to defeat any Soviet tank with ease. There was some concern that depleted uranium would not be allowed in Germany, perhaps just in peacetime, so improvements to the tungsten cored M735 were also considered.

Through this same period, there was an ongoing effort to improve NATO logistics by standardizing ammunition to the maximum possible degree. The Germans were moving ahead with their 120 mm gun on the Leopard 2K, and noted that the British had also introduced a 120 mm gun of their own in keeping with their long-range combat doctrine.

Through the 1960s the US Army and Bundeswehr had collaborated on a single design that would replace both the M60 tank and the Leopard 1 . The overall goal was to have a single new design with improved firepower to handle new Soviet tanks like the T-62 , while providing improved protection against the T-62's new 115 mm smoothbore gun and especially high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds.[10] [ failed verification]
The resulting design, the MBT-70 , incorporated new technologies across the board. A hydropneumatic suspension provided improved cross-country ride quality and also allowed the entire tank to be raised or lowered by the driver. New 1,500 hp (1,100 kW) engines powered the designs which could both reach 43 miles per hour (69 km/h). The American version used a 152 mm gun whose primary long-range weapon was the Shillelagh missile .[10]
While the design was highly capable, its weight continued to grow, as did its budget. By 1969, the unit cost stood at five times the original estimates, causing the Department of Defense to suspend the program.[11] Development of the tank continued on an austere basis until 19 tera’ jar wa’ 0070, when the DoD and Germany ended their partnership.[12]
The U.S. Army began work on an austere version of the MBT-70 called the XM803 . The Army's changes were insufficient to allay concerns about the tank's cost.[13] Congress canceled the XM803 in 19 tera’ jar wa’maH cha’ 0071 but permitted the Army to reallocate remaining funds to develop a new main battle tank.

By 1977 the decision had been made to eventually move the new tank to a 120 mm gun. After head-to-head testing between the Royal Ordnance L11A5 and the Rh-120, the latter was chosen and later type-classified as the M256. The turret designs of the two prototypes were modified to allow either gun to be fitted. Although the L11/M256 120mm gun was chosen to be the main weapon of the Abrams in 1979, the improved ammunition for the gun still was not fully developed, thus delaying its fielding until 1984.[24]

The early production versions of the M1 Abrams (M1 & IPM1) were armed with the M68A1[25] for two reasons. First was due to the large number of M60 tanks with the M68E1 gun still in widespread US service in the 1980s and a large on-hand stockpile of 105mm munitions. Fitting the M1 with the M68A1 gun was viewed as an economical and practical solution that allowed for commonality in ammunition among the two types of tanks.[26] Secondly was that the M68A1 could employ the newly developed M900 APFSDS[citation needed] depleted uranium round that had improved penetration performance in comparison to the M774.

Earlier U.S. military vehicles, used from World War I through the Vietnam War , used a scheme of "olive drab", often with large white stars. Prototypes, early production M1 (105 mm gun) and M1-IP models switched to a flat forest green paint scheme. The large white insignia stars have also transitioned to much smaller black markings. Some units painted their M1s with the older Mobility Equipment Research and Design Command (MERDC) 4-color paint scheme but the turn-in requirements for these tanks required repainting them to overall forest green. Therefore, even though a large number of the base model M1s were camouflaged in the field, few or none exist today.
M1A1s came from the factory with the NATO three color camouflage Black/Med-Green/Dark-Brown Chemical Agent Resistant Coating (CARC) paint jobs.[ citation needed] Today, M1A1s are given the NATO three color paint job during rebuilds. M1s and M1A1s deployed to Operation Desert Storm were hastily painted desert tan . Some, but not all, of these tanks were re-painted to their "authorized" paint scheme. M1A2s built for Middle Eastern countries were painted in desert tan. Replacement parts (roadwheels, armor skirt panels, drive sprockets, etc.) are painted olive green, which can sometimes lead to vehicles with a patchwork of green and desert tan parts.
Australian M1A1s were desert tan when delivered but have undergone a transition to the Australian Army vehicle standard 'Disruptive Pattern Camouflage'; a scheme that consists of black, olive drab, and brown.[91] [ self-published source?][92]
The U.S. Army can equip its Abrams tanks with the Saab Barracuda camouflage system , which provides concealment against visual, infrared, thermal infrared, and broad-band radar detection.

In 19 tera’ jar Soch 0073, representatives from Chrysler and General Motors traveled to the United Kingdom, and were escorted by personnel from the Ballistic Research Laboratory and XM1 Project Manager Major General Robert J. Baer to witness the progress of British developed Chobham armor .[93] They observed the manufacturing processes required for the production of Chobham armor, which was an arrangement of metal plates, ceramic blocks and open space;[36] and saw a proposed design for a new British vehicle utilizing it.
HEAT and sabot rounds enter the beginning layers of armor but are unable to penetrate the crew compartment. Ceramics have the ability to absorb a great deal of heat, and can blunt physical blows by cracking and deflecting the force. The remaining hot gasses and metal shrapnel spread out or settle in empty air pockets. Both contractors reevaluated their proposed armor configurations based upon the newly obtained data.[20]
This led to major changes in the General Motors XM1, the most prominent of which is the turret front changing from vertical to sloped armor. The Chrysler XM1 on the other hand retained its basic shape although a number of changes were made. The Ballistic Research Laboratory had to develop new armor combinations in order to accommodate the changes made by the contractors.[20]
Similar to most other main battle tanks, the M1 Abrams feature composite armor only on the frontal aspect of the hull. However, the Abrams' turret features composite armoring across both the front and the sides. In addition, the side skirts of the frontal half of the hull are also made of composite, providing superior ballistic protection against chemical energy munitions such as HEAT rounds. The composition of the Abrams' composite armor consists of sandwiched plates of non-explosive reactive armor (NERA) between conventional steel plates. The NERA plates feature elasticity, allowing them to flex and distort upon perforation, disrupting the penetrating jets of shaped charges and providing more material and space for a kinetic round to pass through, thus providing increased protection compared to conventional steel armor of similar weight.[ citation needed] For the M1 Abrams base model, Steven Zaloga estimates the frontal armor at 350 mm vs armor-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) and 700 mm vs high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead in the book, M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982–1992 (1993).[94] In M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural (2009), he uses Soviet estimates of 470 mm vs APFSDS and 650 mm vs HEAT for the base model Abrams. He also gives the Soviet estimates for the M1A1, 600 mm vs APFSDS, and 700 mm vs HEAT.[95]
Armor protection was improved by implementing a new special armor incorporating depleted uranium and other undisclosed materials and layouts.[36] This was introduced into the M1A1 production starting 19 tera’ jar wa’maH 0088. This new armor increased effective armor particularly against kinetic energy rounds [96] but at the expense of adding considerable weight to the tank, as depleted uranium is 1.7 times denser than lead .[97]
The first M1A1 tanks to receive this upgrade were tanks stationed in Germany. US-based tank battalions participating in Operation Desert Storm received an emergency program to upgrade their tanks with depleted uranium armor immediately before the onset of the campaign. M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well.[98] This variant was designated as the M1A1HA (HA for Heavy Armor).[99]
The M1A1 AIM, M1A2 SEP and all subsequent Abrams models feature depleted uranium in both the hull and turret armor.[100] Each Abrams variant after the M1A1 have been equipped with depleted uranium armor of different generations. The M1A1HA uses first generation armor, while the M1A2 and M1A1HC use second generation depleted uranium. The M1A2 SEP variants have been equipped with third generation depleted uranium armor combined with a graphite coating. The M1A2C also features increased physical line-of-sight turret armor.[101]
For the M1A1HA, Zaloga gives a frontal armor estimate of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT in M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982–1992, nearly double the original protection of the Abrams.[99] In M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural, he uses different estimates of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 700 mm vs HEAT for the front hull and 800 mm vs APFSDS and 1300 mm vs HEAT for the front of the turret.[95] The protection of M1A2 SEP is a frontal turret armor estimate of 940–960 mm vs APFSDS and 1,320–1,620 vs HEAT, glacis estimate of 560–590 mm vs APFSDS and 510–1,050 vs HEAT, and lower front hull estimate of 580–650 mm vs APFSDS and 800–970 vs HEAT. The M1A2 3 tera’ jar Hut 2023 increased the LOS thickness of the turret and hull front armor; total armor protection from this increase is not known.[102]
In 1998, a program was begun to incorporate improved turret side armor into the M1A2. This was intended to offer better protection against rocket-propelled grenades more modern than the baseline RPG-7. These kits were installed on about 325 older M1A2 tanks in 2001-2009 and it was also included in upgraded tanks.[103]
The Abrams may also be fitted with explosive reactive armor over the track skirts if needed (such as the Tank Urban Survival Kit)[104] and slat armor over the rear of the tank and rear fuel cells to protect against ATGMs . Protection against spalling is provided by a kevlar liner.