Tankers Up! Any substantial armor diff between M1A1 and M1A2?

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Tankers Up! Any substantial armor diff between M1A1 and M1A2?

Posted: 8/18/2005 4:54:25 PM EDT

Or variants?

I'm curious just how capable the M1A1s are which we left in Saudi (and Egyptian?) hands.

Posted: 8/18/2005 4:58:31 PM EDT

[#1]

CITS
50X magnification are the big ones, there are a couple others I am not sure of.
it is a pretty nice upgrade.

Posted: 8/18/2005 4:59:43 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

I'm curious just how capable the M1A1s are which we left in Saudi (and Egyptian?) hands.

Add on question: Can we kill these tanks if we had to?

In other words, can an M1A1/A2 kill an M1A1 if it had to.

Posted: 8/18/2005 5:00:51 PM EDT

[#3]

An Abrahms has only one weak point, and thats its ass.
You gotta hit it point blank and you gotta hit it from behind!

Posted: 8/18/2005 5:05:13 PM EDT

[#4]

I think the M1 tanks we sell to other nations do not have the special armor, but rather, are made with conventional armor.

Posted: 8/18/2005 5:16:37 PM EDT

[#5]

That's what I'm interested in - after GW1 we essentially GAVE Saudi Arabia OUR tanks - that should have had the Chobham-DU armor. I think the Arabist State Dept pulled a fast one in 'facilitating' the transaction.
The reason given was that it would cost more to ship them back to the US than they were worth - which reeked of total BS.

Posted: 8/18/2005 5:18:35 PM EDT

[#6]

the tank is only as good as it's crew.

Posted: 8/18/2005 5:20:29 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I'm curious just how capable the M1A1s are which we left in Saudi (and Egyptian?) hands.

Add on question: Can we kill these tanks if we had to?

I remember reading somewhere someone asked an Israeli officer how Israel could have possibly won all their wars given the impossible odds against them. The Israeli said "Well, it really helps that we've been fighting Arabs."

So don't worry about us being outmatched by Egyptians and Saudis just because they've got our tanks.

Posted: 8/18/2005 5:47:09 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
That's what I'm interested in - after GW1 we essentially GAVE Saudi Arabia OUR tanks - that should have had the Chobham-DU armor. I think the Arabist State Dept pulled a fast one in 'facilitating' the transaction.
The reason given was that it would cost more to ship them back to the US than they were worth - which reeked of total BS.

From what I understand, those tanks have stayed in American-controlled warehouses, maintained by Americans, in case we ever need them again. Basically, we just never shipped them back to the US, but the Saudis dont get to play with them.

The tanks we have sold to other countries do not have the Chobham armor.

Kharn

Posted: 8/18/2005 5:52:34 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

I'm curious just how capable the M1A1s are which we left in Saudi (and Egyptian?) hands.

Add on question: Can we kill these tanks if we had to?

I remember reading somewhere someone asked an Israeli officer how Israel could have possibly won all their wars given the impossible odds against them. The Israeli said "Well, it really helps that we've been fighting Arabs."

So don't worry about us being outmatched by Egyptians and Saudis just because they've got our tanks.

LOL

I have had a limited experience with Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Tunisians - and Israelis in the field in armor. The quote attributed to the Israeli officer has me ROFLMAO.

My impression of the Egyptians and Syrians was their laziness. I did meet one Egyptian officer that was a true warrior, but he was not the norm, in my experience.

My opinion of the Tunisians was even less favorable. At the time, my impression was that if their entire Army was as gay as the pixies i dealt with, a well motivated Boy Scout troop would overmatch them. Over time I've gotten to know their culture more, so I don't know if the word "pixies" would necessarily be the way I'd describe them, but even so, they were pretty lame.

The Jordanians by contrast were actually pretty good. They bitched about everything under the sun, but I guess that doesn't make them all that different than any other army. There was a very noticable difference between the Jordanians and any other Arab I've dealt with.

The Israelis were all business, all the time. In truth, my time with them was extremely limited, and hell no I did not disclose any involvement with any arabs prior to meeting them.

Posted: 8/18/2005 6:25:29 PM EDT

[#10]

I spent a total of 6 years in Saudi as an instructor to both the Saudi Army and the Saudi National Guard. I wasn't impressed by members of either service. Most seemed to have no interest in learning their jobs and had could spend the entire day doing a fire control alignment test on some howitzers and yet the next day claim that they have no idea how to do it.
If it wasn't for General Dynamics keeps their tanks running, I imagine that they would be nothing more than 70 ton monuments real soon.

Posted: 8/18/2005 6:30:25 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
The Jordanians by contrast were actually pretty good. They bitched about everything under the sun, but I guess that doesn't make them all that different than any other army. There was a very noticable difference between the Jordanians and any other Arab I've dealt with.

Jordan maintains pretty close relations with the UK and a lot of their officers were educated at Sandhurst.

Posted: 8/18/2005 6:58:24 PM EDT

[#12]

lasertech: What you said doesn't surprise me, becasue from what I understand most of the grunt work in Saudi Arabia is done by "guest workers," and I guess that permediates throught out the Saudi society including their military.

Posted: 8/18/2005 7:01:37 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I'm curious just how capable the M1A1s are which we left in Saudi (and Egyptian?) hands.

Add on question: Can we kill these tanks if we had to?

In other words, can an M1A1/A2 kill an M1A1 if it had to.

As long as we have the A-10, no problem. I'm sure we can take care of them in other ways too. And like it was said, the tank is only as good as the crew.

Posted: 8/18/2005 7:06:48 PM EDT

[#14]

See here: www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

It doesn't seem to answer the original question though. But I think the vast difference in crew quality and training will make a gigantic difference in a hypothetical conflict with foes armed with M1/M1A1 tanks.

Posted: 8/18/2005 7:10:17 PM EDT

[#15]

We've sold Egypt M-1s also

The Israelis weren't all that happy about that little arrangement...they also have the DU penetrators IIRC.

ETA: M1s can kill M1s, the only place that MIGHT stop an M1 penetrator is the very front but even that is doubtful. A Challenger 2 blew another Challenger 2 to hell in GW2 by shooting straight through the thickest part of the armor. Range obviously plays a roll and I'm not sure if the penetrator loses enough speed at maximum effective range to not kill the tank but they will kill each other that's for sure.

Posted: 8/19/2005 5:19:18 AM EDT

[#16]

M1A2 might have a few extra mounting bolts for armor packs, that's about it. The upgrades are mainly for the electronics: extra generator, new sensors, color screens, etc... The loser will be the one who gets shot first. I wouldn't worry too much about enemy M1's because we're used to detecting/shooting at extreme long range and they aren't.

Posted: 8/19/2005 5:56:12 AM EDT

[#17]

IIRC they upgraded the rear armor

Posted: 8/19/2005 6:10:13 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
IIRC they upgraded the rear armor

They just added slat armor to protect the exhaust port from RPGs. It wouldn't do shit against a HEAT or SABOT round.

Posted: 8/19/2005 6:22:38 AM EDT

[#19]

Saudi M1A's?

This thread needs more WARTHOG baby!

Posted: 8/19/2005 6:31:32 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
An Abrahms has only one weak point, and thats its ass.
You gotta hit it point blank and you gotta hit it from behind!

Sooo..... what you're saying is..... we should SIIIPAPP?

Posted: 8/19/2005 6:32:18 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
An Abrahms has only one weak point, and thats its ass.
You gotta hit it point blank and you gotta hit it from behind!

Reminds me of a girl I met in college.

Posted: 8/19/2005 7:50:11 AM EDT

[#22]

M1A1 has less armour than M1A1HA/HACT. The M1A2 has about the same armour level as the M1A1HA.

To my knowledge, the DU armour inserts is not installed in the Kuwaiti, or Saudi tanks. I'm pretty sure it's not in the Egyptian A1s, and I honestly don't know about the Aussie ones.

NTM

Posted: 8/19/2005 8:17:01 AM EDT

[#23]

I think you guys are under the misunderstanding that the armor is the same in the export tanks as ours. They are not. Even the South Korean M1s donot have the Chobalm armor.

So you dont have to worry about having to kill the M1s that we use.

A member recently posted that the Arabs when they were training them would not sight in their guns or clean them. Allah would will the gun to work and kill the enemy.

Posted: 8/19/2005 8:36:29 AM EDT

[#24]

South Korean does not have M1s. Their tanks are superficially similar, and highly influenced by the M1, but are of a completely Korean design.

I agree that Egyptian and Saudi M1 tanks are just for show, I doubt either country even possesses the tactical refueling capability and heavy lift capability to move them across a town, let alone into battle (consider, if you will, the Sinai Peninsula).

Of course, as mentioned earlier, the armor is also not the same as ours.

I also agree that the crew makes the tank more than anything else. I would pit an American crew in an M60 against any Egyptian crew in an M1.

Both countries know they can only make any effective use of those tanks if they stay on our side.

Arab armies are notoriously incompetent, hence the common expression by the MiTT guys over here, "remeber, we don't have to make them as goods as us, just better then the fuckheads." This whole part of the world runs like some sort of bad Mafioso movie painted on an international level.

Posted: 8/19/2005 9:02:56 AM EDT

[#25]

I'm more worried about their F15's than their armor at any rate, a tank is only king of the battlefield until a hellfire slams home and we've got plenty of platforms to launch those from. Anyone know how many operational airframes they have?

Posted: 8/19/2005 10:14:06 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
South Korean does not have M1s. Their tanks are superficially similar, and highly influenced by the M1, but are of a completely Korean design.

I agree that Egyptian and Saudi M1 tanks are just for show, I doubt either country even possesses the tactical refueling capability and heavy lift capability to move them across a town, let alone into battle (consider, if you will, the Sinai Peninsula).

Of course, as mentioned earlier, the armor is also not the same as ours.

I also agree that the crew makes the tank more than anything else. I would pit an American crew in an M60 against any Egyptian crew in an M1.

Both countries know they can only make any effective use of those tanks if they stay on our side.

Arab armies are notoriously incompetent, hence the common expression by the MiTT guys over here, "remeber, we don't have to make them as goods as us, just better then the fuckheads." This whole part of the world runs like some sort of bad Mafioso movie painted on an international level.

They are basically M1s that have been modified for Korean terrain. For instance the wheelbase is much shorter and there is one less bogey wheel per side. Also the armor is of the everyday variety verses the ceramic composite that is used ours. They made in Korea under American consultation.
The link below gives some detail about the different armor packages that are available for export compared to the Chobham armor used in ours, the brits, and german tanks.
http://www.answers.com/topic/m1-abrams

ETA: They also use diesel engines compared to our turbines. Although slower their range is greatly increased.

Posted: 8/19/2005 10:38:00 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
the tank is only as good as it's crew.

Posted: 8/19/2005 11:12:00 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
I'm more worried about their F15's than their armor at any rate, a tank is only king of the battlefield until a hellfire slams home and we've got plenty of platforms to launch those from. Anyone know how many operational airframes they have?

3??

Oh, and thanks for the new desktop pic PBIR!!!

Posted: 8/19/2005 11:23:38 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
the tank is only as good as it's crew.

!?

It's a very accurate statement. After Desert Storm, a general went as far as to say that if the Iraqis had the M1s and the US had T72s, the result would have been the same. Training goes a long, long way to making a tank effective.

A Challenger 2 blew another Challenger 2 to hell in GW2 by shooting straight through the thickest part of the armor.

Source? Only C2 Blue-on-Blue I'm aware of was a HESH round that went through the loader's hatch.

I wouldn't be surprised that the armour sold to other countries was chobham. I'd be very surprised if they had the DU inserts though.

NTM

Posted: 8/19/2005 12:01:47 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
South Korean does not have M1s. Their tanks are superficially similar, and highly influenced by the M1, but are of a completely Korean design.

I agree that Egyptian and Saudi M1 tanks are just for show, I doubt either country even possesses the tactical refueling capability and heavy lift capability to move them across a town, let alone into battle (consider, if you will, the Sinai Peninsula).

Of course, as mentioned earlier, the armor is also not the same as ours.

I also agree that the crew makes the tank more than anything else. I would pit an American crew in an M60 against any Egyptian crew in an M1.

Both countries know they can only make any effective use of those tanks if they stay on our side.

Arab armies are notoriously incompetent, hence the common expression by the MiTT guys over here, "remeber, we don't have to make them as goods as us, just better then the fuckheads." This whole part of the world runs like some sort of bad Mafioso movie painted on an international level.

They are basically M1s that have been modified for Korean terrain. For instance the wheelbase is much shorter and there is one less bogey wheel per side. Also the armor is of the everyday variety verses the ceramic composite that is used ours. They made in Korea under American consultation.
The link below gives some detail about the different armor packages that are available for export compared to the Chobham armor used in ours, the brits, and german tanks.
http://www.answers.com/topic/m1-abrams

ETA: They also use diesel engines compared to our turbines. Although slower their range is greatly increased.

Korea does not have M1 tanks.
They have these: Type 88 K1

They look like an M1 (sort of), but they're another Korean knockoff.

Posted: 8/19/2005 12:27:43 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
the tank is only as good as it's crew.

You sir obviously don’t know much about armored warfare. I suggest a little look at what the Israeli tank crews did with to the Arabs over the years with comparable or inferior armor.

Posted: 8/19/2005 1:19:03 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
South Korean does not have M1s. Their tanks are superficially similar, and highly influenced by the M1, but are of a completely Korean design.

I agree that Egyptian and Saudi M1 tanks are just for show, I doubt either country even possesses the tactical refueling capability and heavy lift capability to move them across a town, let alone into battle (consider, if you will, the Sinai Peninsula).

Of course, as mentioned earlier, the armor is also not the same as ours.

I also agree that the crew makes the tank more than anything else. I would pit an American crew in an M60 against any Egyptian crew in an M1.

Both countries know they can only make any effective use of those tanks if they stay on our side.

Arab armies are notoriously incompetent, hence the common expression by the MiTT guys over here, "remeber, we don't have to make them as goods as us, just better then the fuckheads." This whole part of the world runs like some sort of bad Mafioso movie painted on an international level.

They are basically M1s that have been modified for Korean terrain. For instance the wheelbase is much shorter and there is one less bogey wheel per side. Also the armor is of the everyday variety verses the ceramic composite that is used ours. They made in Korea under American consultation.
The link below gives some detail about the different armor packages that are available for export compared to the Chobham armor used in ours, the brits, and german tanks.
http://www.answers.com/topic/m1-abrams

ETA: They also use diesel engines compared to our turbines. Although slower their range is greatly increased.

Korea does not have M1 tanks.
They have these: Type 88 K1

They look like an M1 (sort of), but they're another Korean knockoff.

Techincally they may not be M1s. But they are based on the design of the M1. They share a lot of the design features. A knockoff is still a copy.

Posted: 8/19/2005 3:40:51 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted: Techincally they may not be M1s. But they are based on the design of the M1. They share a lot of the design features. A knockoff is still a copy.

And since they chose diesel engines instead of a gas turbine, they wouldn't be able to roast a dog on the rear bumper for supper. He he he! I've eaten dogs before, they taste like goat.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Tankers Up! Any substantial armor diff between M1A1 and M1A2?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us