M1 trials in Pakistan

[LeGenD]

In 1987, an M1A1 Abrams Tank was tested in Pakistan and its performance was terrible according to Pakistani accounts. A (Pakistani) major [in a documentary] claimed that even the Chinese Type 59 tank is better then the M1A1 Abrams Tank.

My point of contention is that if M1A1 Abrams Tank was so bad, how come it performed marvelously in diverse environments ranging from deserts to urban settings during the Persian Gulf War 1991 and Operation Iraqi Freedom? If Pakistani accounts are to be taken seriously, then M1A1 Abrams Tank should have been a failure.

NOTE: M1A1 Abrams Tank have been used in the deserts of Jordan and Afghanistan as well. Therefore, environment was never an issue.

A [BBC] documentary about the (deceased) Pakistan army chief Zia-ul-Huq contains footage of an [unidentified] gun firing a (dummy) round towards a target but misses it by considerable margin. This gun is claimed to be that of the M1A1 Abrams Tank.

However, this type of gun is (not) used in an M1A1 Abrams Tank (not even in the export model of this Tank). Therefore, I find this documentary misleading. And if Pakistani accounts are based on this footage, then they are equally misplaced and I find it strange that nobody attempted to critically evaluate this matter at official capacity.

Here is a photo of an M1A1 Abrams Tank:

The actual gun of an M1A1 Abrams Tank is [vastly] different from the gun shown in BBC documentary.

Now, here is PROOF of high accuracy of an M1A1 Abrams Tank: Imgur (A dummy round was fired towards the left-most target panel and hit the target. It shall be kept in mind that dummy rounds do not destroy targets.)

TAS (Target Acquisition System) of M1A1 Abrams Tank:

The Gunner's Primary Sight-Line of Sight (GPS-LOS), was developed by the Electro-Optical Systems Division of Hughes Aircraft Company. The night vision Thermal Imaging System (TIS), also from Hughes, creates an image based on the differences of heat radiated by objects in the field of view. The thermal image is displayed in the eyepiece of the Gunner's sight together with the range measurement to within 10 meters of accuracy, from a Hughes laser range finder, which is integrated into all of the fire control systems. The Abrams also has an onboard digital fire control computer. Range data from the laser rangefinder is transferred directly to the fire control computer, which automatically calculates the fire control solution. The data includes 1) the lead angle measurement, 2) the bend of the gun measured by the muzzle reference system of the main armament, 3) wind velocity measurement from a wind sensor on the roof of the turret and 4) the data from a pendulum static cant sensor located at the center of the turret roof. The Gunner or Commander manually inputs the data on the ammunition type and temperature, and the barometric pressure and the weapon is prepared for engagement.

Source: M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank

This disclosure is from a book of Steven J. Zaloga:

Pakistan tested the M1 tank, but disagreements with the US over its nuclear programme have prevented acquisition of the Abrams tank.

This disclosure is from a book of Pranay Gupte:

In Bahawalpur, Zia and his brass had watched a demonstration of the M1-Abrams, one of the most sophisticated tanks in the world. The manufacturer of the tank, General Dynamics Inc., was so keen to make a sale that the American company had trimmed the overall price of a package deal by $500,000 to $3 million per tank. Indeed Zia seemed so impressed by the tank's awesome capabilities that the General Dynamics executives at the scene were certain that a deal will be clinched.

Zia left the demonstration in his usual cheerful mood, pausing to chat with several local security personnel and others before he boarded the C-130. The plane took off with a roar, but in less than four minutes, while it was at an altitude of 4000 feet and still climbing, the aircraft lost radio contact with the control tower.

In the nutshell, we have conflicting accounts from different sources about this matter but I have provided (neutral) evidence that is enough to dismiss Pakistani accounts (and) the credibility of the relevant footage in the referred BBC documentary.

Therefore, all of the above leads to following questions:-

1. The M1A1 model tested in Pakistan was a prototype?
2. Pakistani accounts are FALSE?
3. Any technical information about this testing event?

Any meaningful input from the professionals is welcome but I will give preference to concrete information of the events, (not) fairy-tales like my uncle was an eye-witness and the tank was shit and blah blah.

 

[Muhammad Omar]

Maybe Pakistan was never Interested in American Armour Coz of Fuel cost,Maintenance and more above of all the forever changing Yank mood and Embargoes so it was rejected back then

 

[tahir195]

I think now we should go for t-99

 

[Muhammad Omar]

I think now we should go for t-99

Pakistan Already getting 300 T-99

 

[LeGenD]

@Muhammad Omar

You have a point. However, Zia-ul-Haq's sudden demise may also have led to cancellation of the deal, no?

People may have thought that CIA have something to do with assassination of the COAS, no?

 

[Muhammad Omar]

@Muhammad Omar

You have a point. However, Zia-ul-Haq's sudden demise may also have led to cancellation of the deal, no?

People may have thought that CIA have something to do with assassination of the COAS, no?

i think Zia died after the cancellation of the deal... he saw the tests though...

 

[thrilainmanila]

THE M1A1/A2, needs massive logistical support

 

[TheNoob]

@Muhammad Omar

You have a point. However, Zia-ul-Haq's sudden demise may also have led to cancellation of the deal, no?

People may have thought that CIA have something to do with assassination of the COAS, no?

On stop right there.

He was surely probably on a path to something "some foreigners" didnt like.

 

[airmarshal]

M1 tank uses turbine engine and to my knowledge is very maintenance intensive in our environment.

M1 is also a very heavy tank.

 

[war&peace]

Pakistan account was totally correct and got really vindicated in Gulf war and in Yemen, it has been a failure.
Tank Abrams: the legend and reality | Encyclopedia of safety

Tank Abrams: the legend and reality


Vulnerability analysis of the tank M1A1/A2 in the process of implementing in Iraq in 2003

Second Iraq war revealed a feeble place of American tanks M1A1 "Abrams" and quite dispelled the myth of the invincibility of his painstakingly implanting in the last decade.

The frontal armor turret and hull "Abrams" still provide good protection against anti-tank weapons are in service with the Iraqi Army. But the side and aft projections remain vulnerable even grenade launchers developed in the 60s of the last century.


Also, there were cases of disabling tanks fire from astern as the 25-mm guns, "their" BMP "Bradley", and 30-mm guns, BMP-2. It is no secret and what is not keeping within the allotted weight limitations South American designers had to sacrifice the booking of the hull sides, which provides protection against armor piercing projectiles 30mm gun only at course angle + — 30 degrees, which features side skirts width of 70 mm. Other areas of the board — from 5 mm myagenkoy were followed by a 30 mm armored steel hull. This barrier is affected guns of 30 mm cannons BMP-2 to 2000 m (when using armor-piercing shells) using ordinary armor-piercing projectiles, this distance is slightly lower.

According to foreign experts propelled grenades PG-7V n with probability 55% hit "Abrams" in the side of the tower and the hull sides above the rollers. With the possibility of 70% — to the roof of the tower.

It was also found that the "Abrams" in the field criteria "burn" more fuel than they are entitled to the norm. There were difficulties with the delivery of spare parts for the failed machine, resulting in many warped tanks neudovalos repaired and they were cannibalized for spare parts to repair their own more fortunate brothers.

According to official sources, disk imaging-based action 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division United States can make the following conclusions about the vulnerability of tanks "Abrams":
-Missiles "Cornet" in Iraq found
-The top, sides, and rear armor is susceptible to defeat.
-Reported cases where the 30 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the tank in the rear.
-The left and right side of the side skirts breaks RPG.
-Cosmetic damage in the defeat anti shots to RPGs.
-No cases, the destruction of tanks anti-tank mines (as opposed to 1991).
-Knock-out panels on the tower were working normally, documented cases of getting into combat pack to death the crew did not lead.
-The engine showed very low reliability and the highest fire risk.
-For the complete destruction of the tank rather one thermite grenades (inside), 2 missiles "Mayverik" or shot BPS (to combat pack)
-To derive the tank out of action rather from the 1st shot an RPG at the side of the hull.

Many destroyed "Abrams" affected by fire antitank grenade launchers RPG-7 type in the board, protivokumulyativnymi screens the way even the PG-7V grenade (this is one of the more types of old times grenades, RPG-7), and its cumulative jet was pretty, that after Screen punch and side armor. There have been cases of bad losses due to inflammation of auxiliary power units (APUs), and / or ignition of containers with supplies fuel to get into the engine-transmission compartment and that ignited engine. So one burned "Abrams" ("due to the secondary effects") which was fired from a 12.7-mm DShK. The bullet hit the left rear of the tower, where just posted MAT, broke box, put out of action setting, burning fuel and oil from it rushed down to the MTO. Timeout fire power plant, which is absolutely burnt, tank can not be restored. Speaking of the APU tanks "Abrams". According to the materials of the U.S. Army Armor Management (TACOM) and the center of research expertise of the U.S. Army (CALL) 3rd Mechanized Division within 21 day of the operation by enemy fire or as a result of friendly fire was struck just 23 tanks M1A1 «Abrams' and M2/M3 BMP "Bradley". Fifteen of them (including nine "Abrams" and 6 "Bradley") were struck by an RPG-7. One tank of this division as a result of small arms fire guns and, as a consequence, the uncertain actions of the driver, fell from a bridge into the Tigris River, the crew died.

After the official end of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" loss of armored coalition not only did not decrease, but rather increased. The main opponent for the tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are currently the antitank grenade launchers and land mines that set Iraqi guerrillas on the patrol routes of U.S. troops.

Thus, for example, 27. 10. 2003, 40 km from Baghdad to the north-east of the town of Ballads was undermined a new version of the tank, "Abrams' M1A2 SEP (System Enhanced Package) from the 4th Mechanized Division of the United States. The tank was blown up by an improvised roadside bomb, which consisted of several artillery shells. As a result, undermining tower tank flew 30 meters.

Nor confirmed reliability own fuel tanks of the tank located at the front of the tank on both sides of the driver in both for the case of contact with them led to the destruction of the tank. Apart from the problems as a result of enemy fire M1A1 tank also showed low reliability and a very huge fire hazard.

The large number of complex and prone to failure of systems and sub-systems led to the fact that many of the machines simply were not able to do set tasks. These systems, in the views of American professionals are fire control system, radio and other electrical systems, which often have cross-checked and reconciled after their exposure to vibration and heavy shocks during the battle.


Firepower

Tank firepower was more than enough to destroy outdated Russian and Chinese tanks. BPS M829 penetrated the frontal armor of Iraqi tanks at all ranges of fire.
Cumulative M830A1 used to bombard the bunkers and armored vehicles.
A more effective instrument of tanks "Abrams" in urban combat was a 12.7-mm machine gun mounted on the tower. Typically, the Iraqi resistance groups, disguised, kept off tanks and infantry fighting vehicles at a distance of least 100 m, and then opened fire salvo of mnogokalibernyh machine guns and RPGs. In such situations, a 12.7-mm (50 caliber) machine gun mounted on a tower, was more effective in hitting the enemy of all light type shelters. When was conducted fire of the 120-mm tank gun, then used, priemuschestvenno, cumulative (HEAT) or caliber armor piercing (MPAT) rounds. Once received reports on the effectiveness of the use of guns in close combat in urban criteria on the towers began to install the second, and from time to time and a third machine gun 7.62 mm.

Back in 2003, a case destruction, "Abrams" is not something completely understandable. Hills on the bigler.ru concluded that it was spetspulya released by ATR, maybe uranium and / or active-reactive. Well, it was necessary to get to the right place …

 

[LeGenD]

Pakistan account was totally correct and got really vindicated in Gulf war and in Yemen, it has been a failure.

Pakistani accounts are FABRICATIONS, period.

According to a Pakistani major, even the Chinese Type 59 Tank is better then the M1A1 Abrams Tank. Looks like he haven't done his homework.

Focus on the evidence, not [questionable] accounts. This thread is intended to separate FACTS from the MYTHS with concrete evidence. Purpose is to stop the spread of disinformation.

Tank Abrams: the legend and reality | Encyclopedia of safety

I can tell you (many) horror stories about the fate of Russian armor in battles in urban settings [reliable information]. Moreover, this article is poorly written; I will address its points.

Second Iraq war revealed a feeble place of American tanks M1A1 "Abrams" and quite dispelled the myth of the invincibility of his painstakingly implanting in the last decade.

The frontal armor turret and hull "Abrams" still provide good protection against anti-tank weapons are in service with the Iraqi Army. But the side and aft projections remain vulnerable even grenade launchers developed in the 60s of the last century.

Every tank have vulnerabilities. Claims of perfection are largely subjective.

An American military professional once explained that they can design a Tank which can tolerate virtually any kind of anti-tank weapon thrown at it from any angle but it will weigh over 100 tons and would not be practical due to its sheer weight and logistical requirements. Therefore, a balance between protection and mobility is necessary.

Keep in mind that American M1A1 Abrams Tank have DEPLETED URANIUM (armor) coating; this is arguably the best armor protection for a Tank in existence. However, [export] model does not have this armor protection; it have relatively inferior BURLINGTON COMPOSITE armor. American M1A1 Abrams Tank have superior protection and performance then its [export] model.

American M1A1 Abrams Tank have proved their mettle even in the intense urban combat environments such as Operation Phantom Fury:

The enemy had been preparing for the inevitable assault for months. They had built barricades, set IEDs and dug in deep. Most of the four-thousand jihadists were there to fight and die. Task Force Blue Diamond, the 1st Marine Division, led with their tanks. The 70-ton armored vehicles were unstoppable. They mowed down fanatic fighters in the streets and blew through barricades as enemy RPGs bounced off their thick skins, leaving little more than black scorch marks. Four battalions of Marine infantry swarmed into the city behind the armored juggernaut. The insurgents tried to stand and fight.It ended badly for those that thought they could defeat American tanks and Bradleys.

Source: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/operation-phantom-fury-beginning-of-the-end-of-al-qaeda-in-iraq.htm

----

Now, keep in mind that you may have seen some images of destroyed M1A1 Abrams Tanks on the web and ATGMs and RPGs are often credited for these (supposed) kills, but these [accounts] are largely FABRICATIONS as well. Following are some reasons:

1. The tanks [in question] may have been destroyed by friendly fire. There are several documented cases of these unfortunate events.
2. Export model or American model?
3. American troops are known to destroy their own assets to prevent their capture by enemy forces, if they cannot be immediately retrieved.
4. Images don't show what hit them. Details are often lacking.

Even the [export] model have formidable protection and this thread offers a good explanation of the difference between [actual] events and [propaganda] on the web: A Different Iraqi Abrams Story (Why The M1 Is a True Beast)

More importantly, my focus is on [Tank vs. Tank] scenarios.

Also, there were cases of disabling tanks fire from astern as the 25-mm guns, "their" BMP "Bradley", and 30-mm guns, BMP-2. It is no secret and what is not keeping within the allotted weight limitations South American designers had to sacrifice the booking of the hull sides, which provides protection against armor piercing projectiles 30mm gun only at course angle + — 30 degrees, which features side skirts width of 70 mm. Other areas of the board — from 5 mm myagenkoy were followed by a 30 mm armored steel hull. This barrier is affected guns of 30 mm cannons BMP-2 to 2000 m (when using armor-piercing shells) using ordinary armor-piercing projectiles, this distance is slightly lower.

According to foreign experts propelled grenades PG-7V n with probability 55% hit "Abrams" in the side of the tower and the hull sides above the rollers. With the possibility of 70% — to the roof of the tower.

???

It was also found that the "Abrams" in the field criteria "burn" more fuel than they are entitled to the norm. There were difficulties with the delivery of spare parts for the failed machine, resulting in many warped tanks neudovalos repaired and they were cannibalized for spare parts to repair their own more fortunate brothers.

M1A1 Abrams Tank is not designed with FUEL ECONOMY in the mind. This tank is intended for maximum firepower and its gas turbine engine facilitated large ammunition and fuel capacity within the tank. This is a matter of doctrine.

However, an M1A1 Abrams Tank can be transformed in to a FUEL EFFICIENT machine [on demand] with and (adequate) replacement of its engine. Some claim that a diesel engine is a reasonable alternative but an American company have developed a new type of engine, known as HYBRID engine, and it is stated to be the best alternative.

As for the claims of cannibalization of spare parts, I am not sure how this is relevant to discussion at hand.

According to official sources, disk imaging-based action 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division United States can make the following conclusions about the vulnerability of tanks "Abrams":
-Missiles "Cornet" in Iraq found
-The top, sides, and rear armor is susceptible to defeat.
-Reported cases where the 30 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the tank in the rear.
-The left and right side of the side skirts breaks RPG.
-Cosmetic damage in the defeat anti shots to RPGs.
-No cases, the destruction of tanks anti-tank mines (as opposed to 1991).
-Knock-out panels on the tower were working normally, documented cases of getting into combat pack to death the crew did not lead.
-The engine showed very low reliability and the highest fire risk.
-For the complete destruction of the tank rather one thermite grenades (inside), 2 missiles "Mayverik" or shot BPS (to combat pack)
-To derive the tank out of action rather from the 1st shot an RPG at the side of the hull.

Great.

Now should I make a list of vulnerabilities of other Tanks? I am confident that I will find lot of information.

Many destroyed "Abrams" affected by fire antitank grenade launchers RPG-7 type in the board, protivokumulyativnymi screens the way even the PG-7V grenade (this is one of the more types of old times grenades, RPG-7), and its cumulative jet was pretty, that after Screen punch and side armor. There have been cases of bad losses due to inflammation of auxiliary power units (APUs), and / or ignition of containers with supplies fuel to get into the engine-transmission compartment and that ignited engine. So one burned "Abrams" ("due to the secondary effects") which was fired from a 12.7-mm DShK. The bullet hit the left rear of the tower, where just posted MAT, broke box, put out of action setting, burning fuel and oil from it rushed down to the MTO. Timeout fire power plant, which is absolutely burnt, tank can not be restored. Speaking of the APU tanks "Abrams". According to the materials of the U.S. Army Armor Management (TACOM) and the center of research expertise of the U.S. Army (CALL) 3rd Mechanized Division within 21 day of the operation by enemy fire or as a result of friendly fire was struck just 23 tanks M1A1 «Abrams' and M2/M3 BMP "Bradley". Fifteen of them (including nine "Abrams" and 6 "Bradley") were struck by an RPG-7. One tank of this division as a result of small arms fire guns and, as a consequence, the uncertain actions of the driver, fell from a bridge into the Tigris River, the crew died.

Sources?

It is not difficult to come up with stories.

After the official end of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" loss of armored coalition not only did not decrease, but rather increased. The main opponent for the tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are currently the antitank grenade launchers and land mines that set Iraqi guerrillas on the patrol routes of U.S. troops.

Thus, for example, 27. 10. 2003, 40 km from Baghdad to the north-east of the town of Ballads was undermined a new version of the tank, "Abrams' M1A2 SEP (System Enhanced Package) from the 4th Mechanized Division of the United States. The tank was blown up by an improvised roadside bomb, which consisted of several artillery shells. As a result, undermining tower tank flew 30 meters.

Several artillery shells? My god. Such firepower will blow up anything. This proves how much of an idiot the author of the article [in question] is. Such a masterpiece.

Here is an authentic footage of an M1A1 Abrams Tank tolerating an IED explosion from the bottom somewhere in Iraq:

The Tank and the crew remained unharmed.

Nor confirmed reliability own fuel tanks of the tank located at the front of the tank on both sides of the driver in both for the case of contact with them led to the destruction of the tank. Apart from the problems as a result of enemy fire M1A1 tank also showed low reliability and a very huge fire hazard.

The large number of complex and prone to failure of systems and sub-systems led to the fact that many of the machines simply were not able to do set tasks. These systems, in the views of American professionals are fire control system, radio and other electrical systems, which often have cross-checked and reconciled after their exposure to vibration and heavy shocks during the battle.

1. GARBAGE
2. RUBBISH
3. FABRICATIONS

Not even worth responding.

Firepower

Tank firepower was more than enough to destroy outdated Russian and Chinese tanks. BPS M829 penetrated the frontal armor of Iraqi tanks at all ranges of fire.
Cumulative M830A1 used to bombard the bunkers and armored vehicles.
A more effective instrument of tanks "Abrams" in urban combat was a 12.7-mm machine gun mounted on the tower. Typically, the Iraqi resistance groups, disguised, kept off tanks and infantry fighting vehicles at a distance of least 100 m, and then opened fire salvo of mnogokalibernyh machine guns and RPGs. In such situations, a 12.7-mm (50 caliber) machine gun mounted on a tower, was more effective in hitting the enemy of all light type shelters. When was conducted fire of the 120-mm tank gun, then used, priemuschestvenno, cumulative (HEAT) or caliber armor piercing (MPAT) rounds. Once received reports on the effectiveness of the use of guns in close combat in urban criteria on the towers began to install the second, and from time to time and a third machine gun 7.62 mm.

Here: Tank Urban Survival Kit (TUSK) | Military-Today.com

Iraqi resistance groups could do shit in actual urban battles. REPEAT:

The enemy had been preparing for the inevitable assault for months. They had built barricades, set IEDs and dug in deep. Most of the four-thousand jihadists were there to fight and die. Task Force Blue Diamond, the 1st Marine Division, led with their tanks. The 70-ton armored vehicles were unstoppable. They mowed down fanatic fighters in the streets and blew through barricades as enemy RPGs bounced off their thick skins, leaving little more than black scorch marks. Four battalions of Marine infantry swarmed into the city behind the armored juggernaut. The insurgents tried to stand and fight.It ended badly for those that thought they could defeat American tanks and Bradleys.

Source: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/operation-phantom-fury-beginning-of-the-end-of-al-qaeda-in-iraq.htm

Back in 2003, a case destruction, "Abrams" is not something completely understandable. Hills on the bigler.ru concluded that it was spetspulya released by ATR, maybe uranium and / or active-reactive. Well, it was necessary to get to the right place …

Oh nice.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

@Muhammad Omar

You have a point. However, Zia-ul-Haq's sudden demise may also have led to cancellation of the deal, no?

People may have thought that CIA have something to do with assassination of the COAS, no?

It wasn't a bogus claim ,. There is also footage of Abrams in Pakistan .. They did indeed miss targets and had over heating issues ... That was one of the reasons that resulted in Pak initiating AK Project.

 

[LeGenD]

It wasn't a bogus claim ,. There is also footage of Abrams in Pakistan .. They did indeed miss targets and had over heating issues ... That was one of the reasons that resulted in Pak initiating AK Project.

It is BOGUS.

That footage is from a BBC documentary about assassination of COAS Zia-ul-Huq. The documentary shows an unidentified gun firing towards targets and missing them. The documentary-makers shamefully claimed that this is the gun of an M1A1 Abrams Tank. IT IS NOT.

Check the photos in my opening post.

 

[untitled]

Maybe Pakistan was never Interested in American Armour Coz of Fuel cost,Maintenance and more above of all the forever changing Yank mood and Embargoes so it was rejected back then

There were no embargoes then. Zia was still in power

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

It is BOGUS.

That footage is from a BBC documentary about assassination of COAS Zia-ul-Huq. The documentary shows an unidentified gun firing towards targets and missing them. The documentary-makers shamefully claimed that this is the gun of an M1A1 Abrams Tank. IT IS NOT.

Check the photos in my opening post.

The gun you are seeing is a 107 something calib..!

The footage isn't bogus not are the claims .. I know ab officer who was present there when Abrams were tested - which was the reason gen Zia & several other high ranking officers (including Americans) were present in Bahawalpur for..