M1 trials in Pakistan

[LeGenD]

Wait...So your argument on the subject is based on the "inaccuracy" of the footage shown on BBC???? And then you state,


So Pakistan Army rejected the tank after watching the footage on BBC which the BBC claimed to be the tests conducted in Pakistan?

I am not asserting that Pakistani accounts are [absolutely] based on a BBC documentary.

I cited the BBC documentary because it 'supposedly' contains footage of an M1 series MBT firing towards some targets and missing them [in Pakistan]; I analyzed this footage and found it to be misleading. I then mentioned that [if] Pakistani accounts are based on this footage then they are equally misplaced.

You understand the meaning of word if? I hope you do.

Now, if Pakistani accounts are based on another source then they should be presented for critical evaluation. This is the purpose of this thread.

Clear enough?

Another of your points was,



coupled with,



Both of which the US's own reports do not agree with,

http://www.gao.gov/assets/220/215553.pdf
M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982-92 - Steven J. Zaloga - Google Books

You know what the problem of an average Pakistani is? He doesn't focuses on the CONTEXT, he primarily focuses on the NEGATIVITY about an area of interest in most cases. This is why Pakistani nation is plagued with disinformation and is not making much progress.

When the (original) M1 Abrams MBT was developed, their were concerns about its gas turbine engine getting bogged down in desert environments due to the threat of sand creeping in to it. To address this issue, air filters were installed to prevent sand from creeping in to the engine. This technique worked and M1 series MBT were able to work well in desert environments afterwards. Primary maintenance requirement was that the air filters had to be cleaned after hours of operations in the sandy environment.

Information [about problems] in published literature tends to give the impression [to a reader] that the military assets holistically failed to perform according to the expectations of the personnel and/or ran in to serious problems during offensive operations but this impression is MISLEADING. A report is sometimes developed to [critically evaluate] the experiences of personnel with the hardware during military operations and document all kinds of problems (minor to major); purpose of such documentation is to analyze the problems and propose solutions.

No matter what you do, machines are not failure-proof. Every army experiences problems with hardware during operations in harsh environments (ranging from minor to major). Difference is that reports about such experiences are not necessarily declassified for the public in some countries; this is true for Pakistan in particular.

Do you think that Pakistani military hardware is failure-proof? (I can point out dozens of incidents and accidents to you)

Do you also think that US troops marched towards Iraqi positions on foot? Their hardware failed to work in the desert environment, right?

REALITY CHECK: Thousands of military vehicles were deployed for OPERATION DESERT STORM and they worked in the desert environment just fine. Otherwise, OPERATION DESERT STORM would have flopped. Iraqi armed forces were routed from the ground, not through (shock & awe) aerial attacks.

OPERATION DESERT STORM:

Photos of US military convoys advancing towards Iraqi military positions in the desert environments:

During OPERATION DESERT STORM, American armored vehicles such as Bradley and Abrams spearheaded the offensive operations with such speed that the logistics assets were unable to keep up with their pace. Even the (widely used) M113 APC was unable to keep up with them.

You further give credence to the claim by Zaloga that the deal went down due to Pakistan's nuclear issue while in the same breath you also state that after the tests the US representatives were very confident that the deal would be clinched......Disregarding the fact that you are now proposing that the US was stupid enough to send its tanks, those which they did not intend to sell to us, over to Pakistan for testing, you and Zaloga somehow forgot that in the same time period Pakistan was sold the F-16s which by every measure were a far more sensitive sale than the 60 odd M1A1s in contention.

I pointed out a fact that their are [conflicting] accounts in published literature about the reasons for cancellation of this deal.

I also speculated that the deal might have been cancelled due to [unexpected] death of Zia-ul-Huq. It was not a good time for the remainder of the military top brass to proceed with a deal under these circumstances. My point of contention is about the claims of M1A1 Abrams MBT being a failure; these claims do not sit well with the evidence at hand.

Then you keep on rambling on about some "proofs" which you supposedly have given where in reality you have only shown that the BBC footage is not that of the Abrams' gun (which, frankly, I have no clue how it disproves the Pakistani claims) and a gif of a very recent accurate test (read the latest version of the tank)......

I provided additional evidence as well.

REPEAT:

During the war, the Abrams tank exhibited good reliability, lethality, survivability, and mobility, but limited range according to the observations of commanders, crews, maintenance personnel, and Army after action reports. Reported Army readiness rates for the Abrams were 90 percent or higher during the ground war - indicating a high availability to move, shoot, and communicate during combat. The Abrams was lethal, as crews said its 120-mm gun was accurate and its ammunition deadly against all forms of Iraqi Armor. Army observors attribute the gun's high degree to superior sights, high levels of tank readiness, and soldier training.The Abrams also survived well on the battlefield. For example, according to officials from the Center for Army Lessons Learned, several M1A1 crews reported receiving direct frontal hits from the Iraqi T-72s with minimal damage. In fact, the enemy destroyed no Abrams tanks during the Persian Gulf War, according to the army. Crews said Abrams damage were fast and maneuvered well in the sand.

Abrams crews were impressed with the power and performance of the Abram's turbine engine, but they were concerned about its high fuel consumption and the need to frequently clean air filters in the sandy desert environment.

Source: http://www.gao.gov/assets/220/215553.pdf

REPEAT:

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

Every thing crystal clear now?

But your best moment was when you compared a sand mound in this,

with this,

You are comparing a desert flat with a sand dune! Great.

Some photos of sand dunes in the US:

REPEAT:

Desert environments typically comprise of flats, hilly areas, watercourses and dunes. This is true for Cholistan desert as well. However, for comparison purpose, Jordanian desert environment is similar to that of Cholistan.

 

[Arron Bert]

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.



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:-

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.

I think newer modification are available now a days. I'm sure USA has about 1000+ in reserves that can be bought easily with upgrades as well. But PA needs to work on that with USA.

 

[LeGenD]

i think the tank was rejected more on its size and logistics rather then actually performance, the idea of pak army is to have tanks with speed, mobility and some firepower, the abrams is all about protection and firepower, it requires a hell of allot of logistical support, the reason why it enjoyed so much success in dessert storm is because america threw everything in battle with it, A-10s,AH-64s,B52s and F-15Es. the iraqis had shit tactics they dug there tanks into the sand, the idea of fast tank is that it can outmanuver a heavy tank, when you dig it into sand, your asking for it to be destroyed.
The abrams would have been a nighmare for pak army IMO, in any war like scanario, they column would have been too slow to achieve its targets, and the M1 wouldn't have the necessary support it requires e.g. round the clock air support.

You have a point. Logistics requirements based argument have some weight.

However, I will address some of your points.

Persian Gulf War (1991) represents the first example of NETWORK CENTRIC WARFARE in history. Lessons from the Vietnam War facilitated development of NETWORK CENTRIC WARFARE doctrine. According to this doctrine, aerial, land and naval assets should be able to share important information [at unit level] and work in coordinated manner to achieve best possible results during military operations.

Iraqi armed forces did not lack in quality, they were battle-hardened and one of the best in Asia at that time. However, they were [unlucky] in a sense that they were up against NETWORK CENTRIC WARFARE based tactics and state-of-the-art technologies (that have never been used before) and did not had an answer for such threats. This was actually true for most armies in the world at that time. According to credible documentations, Persian Gulf War (1991) stunned even the likes of USSR and China.

During the (shock & awe) aerial campaign based phase of the Persian Gulf War (1991), Iraqi armed forces were bombarded with overwhelming firepower from the aerial assets and this forced the Iraqi commanders to entrench their armored vehicles in the desert environment [adopting camouflaging measures] to reduce the chances of casualties. Reason was that armored vehicles (on the move) were easily picked up and knocked out by aerial assets. Even under these circumstances, an Iraqi military division was ordered to move in to Saudi Arabia and seize Al-Khafji region for strategic purposes; this event is known as Battle of Al-Khafji.

However, when OPERATION DESERT STORM commenced, a large number of Iraqi military assets were actually on the move in the ground.

Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions, in particular, held their ground and fought with courage. Now, they didn't fight in static manner; they performed their own maneuvers and their armored assets even scored direct hits on the advancing US armored assets during such maneuvers; US personnel confirmed this in their records.

I have noticed that lot of misconceptions exist about developments in the Persian Gulf War (1991). Few have the inclination to do some research.

I have pointed out earlier that Pakistani armed forces should create a Think Tank which should be tasked to conduct research about historical developments, critically evaluate Pakistani military records and experiences and provide input in the matters of acquisition of hardware. A Think Tank would also facilitate dispelling of disinformation within the military ranks. This is what China is doing at present.

 

[alimobin memon]

at the zia time the Abrams offered was original m1 abrams with many weaknesses not even m1a1. Pak chose Type85 which was better at that time. However the so claimed might of abram today is questionable as it hasn't faced a real comparable target even the Standard T72 might give it a bad time. REMEMBER IRAQI T72 were Low quality iraqi assembled with expired or outdated munitions as well as armour thickness was way lower than original soviet t72. These tanks were useless even iraqi army prefered t60 variants more in war against us.

 

[niaz]

MBT requirements are different for each country as the battle terrain is different. Protection and the pure fighting capability of M1 Abrams has already been demonstrated in the two gulf wars and in Afghanistan. However, nothing is perfect and according to what little I know, reasons why it was considered unsuitable for Pakistan were:

- Weight: Even the original M1 was about 61 short tons. Considerably heavier than M-48’s which weighed at about 45 tons (50 short tons) & Chinese T-59 which weigh in at 40 tons. T-80 UD as well Alkhalid weight about 46 tons. The extra 10 tons implied that it was a little more than more of our road bridges could cope with.

- Reliability: Earlier models & even today, M1 has some reliability problems. Gulf war experience revealed that harsh desert environment demanded frequent air filter cleaning because sand-clogged filters reduced engine power and speed. In extreme cases, sand ingestion caused severe damage to its turbine engines. Additionally there was also problem with the fuel pumps.

- Fuel consumption. M1 turbine engine is fuel guzzler and required frequent refuelling which is always a problem under battle conditions and also it translates into higher operating cost.


Notwithstanding the above, M1Abrams remains a true ware horse and deadly in battle. To pooh-pooh a tank on the comments of an anonymous major is in my opinion, a grossly incorrect assumption

 

[Dazzler]

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.

Good to see u here Damian

 

[LeGenD]

at the zia time the Abrams offered was original m1 abrams with many weaknesses not even m1a1. Pak chose Type85 which was better at that time. However the so claimed might of abram today is questionable as it hasn't faced a real comparable target even the Standard T72 might give it a bad time. REMEMBER IRAQI T72 were Low quality iraqi assembled with expired or outdated munitions as well as armour thickness was way lower than original soviet t72. These tanks were useless even iraqi army prefered t60 variants more in war against us.

No MBT is invincible.

However, Iraqi T-72 weren't bad either. They scored direct hits on the American M1A1 Abrams MBTs during battles but their ammo wasn't potent enough to breach American armor.

Good to see u here Damian

I am not him.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

at the zia time the Abrams offered was original m1 abrams with many weaknesses not even m1a1. Pak chose Type85 which was better at that time. However the so claimed might of abram today is questionable as it hasn't faced a real comparable target even the Standard T72 might give it a bad time. REMEMBER IRAQI T72 were Low quality iraqi assembled with expired or outdated munitions as well as armour thickness was way lower than original soviet t72. These tanks were useless even iraqi army prefered t60 variants more in war against us.

Sir Iraqi T-72 had turret separations at M1A1's extreme ranges! That means that the round completely penetrated and exploded inside the tank hence turret separations.

The issue with M1's in Pakistan were the engine sand filters not being efficient enough, complexity of the turbine engine, and the sensitivity of thermal sights. These and other smaller issues were later tackled in the M1A1. The testimony of its effectiveness is in its performance against the best Russian tanks of the time.

 

[Dazzler]

Sir Iraqi T-72 had turret separations at M1A1's extreme ranges! That means that the round completely penetrated and exploded inside the tank hence turret separations.

The issue with M1's in Pakistan were the engine sand filters not being efficient enough, complexity of the turbine engine, and the sensitivity of thermal sights. These and other smaller issues were later tackled in the M1A1. The testimony of its effectiveness is in its performance against the best Russian tanks of the time.

Which best Russian tanks has M1A1 ever faced?

 

[Aamir Hussain]

T-72M I guess. But these machines were made in Poland. Without the add on armor of later variants. So the question you asked and I guess the conclusion you wanted to draw from the question and subsequent discussion was that the M1A1 did not face off with the best of the T-72 versions. Acknowledged and agreed!

I stand corrected. and thank you for asking the question.

 

[Dazzler]

T-72M I guess. But these machines were made in Poland. Without the add on armor of later variants. So the question you asked and I guess the conclusion you wanted to draw from the question and subsequent discussion was that the M1A1 did not face off with the best of the T-72 versions. Acknowledged and agreed!

I stand corrected. and thank you for asking the question.

You were the one who drew a false conclusion in the first place. Your second post settled the matter.

 

[Signalian]

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.

To start with, your point of contention has a basic flaw. M1A1 was not bad. It didnot suit Pakistan Army requirements. PA was not satisfied with its performance as it didnot fit their criteria and the conclusion was that this was not the type of machine they were looking for.
Coming to performing marvellously, yes M1A1 performed good in US Army hands. Similarly, T-59 II and Al-Zarrar performed marvellously in urban settings of North and Western Pakistan in PA hands.

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.

Pakistani accounts are not based on this footage, they are based on the report made by the officers who conducted the field tests infront of the PA top brass as well as the US Army personnel present there.

Nobody critically evaluated this matter at official capacity, is your own assumption. The report was made and submitted. PA does not want to share the official report publicly.
Its almost a 20 year old incident and PA has come a long way since then, included newer tanks like T-80UD and AK as well as upgraded its T-59/69 and many to AZ standard.

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.

The conflicting accounts will remain there always since the PA report has not been made public.

Your evidence holds Zero value and the Pakistani accounts cannot be dismissed because to start with you dont even know whats written in the PA official report. I would rather put firing reports side by side because that is full evidence, you have one sided evidence only.
BBC report and PA official report maybe totally conflicting since PA may only want to share with BBC as much as it deems necessary.

The statement of the PA major on the TV show does hold value. PA officials can be dismissed from service from a slip of tongue on a TV. Infact im very sure the show is edited by ISPR officials at a few level before its is aired. The major talks about firing report of T-59 comparing with that of M1A1 and then says about rejection of M1A1 on accounts of firing.

The assumptions based on rumours, journalist reports and TV programs can be:

M1A1 was present, it uses 120mm gun. In 1987, L-7 105mm Gun had been introduced and M-48 was being upgraded. Maybe T-59 had original 100mm or maybe an upgraded L-7 105mm.

What you can do is to get data on all three guns. Chinese 100mm , British L-7 and M256. Simulate a firing sequence under same conditions of Bahawalpur and then maybe you can get somewhere.Keep the ammunition types, range finders, gun stabilizers etc in account when you conduct this simulation. Get the firing reports from simulation, put all of them side by side and compare.

Lastly, unofficial statements from Armoured Corps officers:

1. We got the technical specs and information we needed from M1A1, considering it a modern MBT.

2. Getting only 50 MBT's on offer was not a good idea, it equipped only a single regiment.

3. Unsatisfied with 120mm gun performance, PA introduced 125mm gun in all its modern tanks. I think there was something about 120mm gun that put off PA officials.

4. There was no issue about fuel consumption of the engine. PA would have used external fuel tanks on the rear.

5. The tank was going to be used in the desert, where bridges are rare, in any case an AVLB and AVRE would have been acquired to support M1A1. Similarly spare parts, filters , up-gradations would have also been possible just like for F-16.

6. PA wanted a tank that it could freely customize according to its requirements like with all the heavily customized Chinese tanks that PA uses.

7. Cost issue was a factor. after brass tracks was conducted by IA in late 1986, PA wanted a better tank than M-48 and T-59 in large numbers. For 50 M1A1, PA could field another 100 Chinese MBT. It was around at this time that Type-85 was acquired with 125mm gun.

All the above is unofficial obviously from different sources but i personally think the 120mm main gun was an issue and for this reason PA doesnt use 120mm instead uses 125mm.

Anyways, digging in a long gone story of 1987 while PA has come a long way in the Armoured warfare, doctrines, tactics as well as machines (newer tanks) makes little sense now.

 

[Quwa]

My understanding is that the PA couldn't go for the M1 Abrams at the time because Pakistan's underlying infrastructure (e.g. bridges) couldn't properly support it. Moreover, the subsequent nuclear sanctions kind of scuttled the entire idea of buying American arms. Moving forward if the PA could afford Leopard 2 or Altay MBTs (both heavy designs), it would go for them. If U.S is willing to offer Abrams under EDA, PA will - IMO - go for them.

 

[SQ8]

My understanding is that the PA couldn't go for the M1 Abrams at the time because Pakistan's underlying infrastructure (e.g. bridges) couldn't properly support it. Moreover, the subsequent nuclear sanctions kind of scuttled the entire idea of buying American arms. Moving forward if the PA could afford Leopard 2 or Altay MBTs (both heavy designs), it would go for them. If U.S is willing to offer Abrams under EDA, PA will - IMO - go for them.

With a gas guzzling Turbine engine that is prone to ingestion of dust?

 

[Penguin]

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.

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.

Good find: Note the last line on this page > disagreements with the US over its nuclear program prevented acquisition of the Abrams tank. To me, that means the US Government would not approve a sale or the Pakistani Government would not give the order to the US (in both cases: retaliation).

With a gas guzzling Turbine engine that is prone to ingestion of dust?

Well...

This engine has a tactical idle mode, specific for combat vehicles. In this mode, the engine idles at higher rpm. This is the function to compensate for the bad response of gas turbines. It takes 4 seconds to generate 90% output from the usual idling. This delay may be fatal to combat vehicles. If high idle speed is maintained, spinning up time of compressors is shortened and then the torque rise delay is shortened. The guide vane mentioned above serves to reduce the heat load of driving mechanism by setting the guide vane as the neutral position. The high speed idling causes the increase of the fuel consumption but life cannot be traded for the fuel economy.
...
AGT1500 has less output than MTU883 but maintains superiority over a wide range of speed.
...
What did US Army got in exchange for this serious disadvantage?

• The first was the turbine's unmatched acceleration. Turbine's light weight and torque feature gave the tank high mobility.
  
• The second was the turbine's stealth feature. The rotating and continuous combustion feature significantly decreases large noises, vibrations and conspicuous exhaust gases characteristic to diesels. So that M1 Abrams is nicknamed as "Whispering Death". Turbine's clean exhaust and low noise also gave much more comfortable environment to soldiers while marching with the tank. Turbine's unseen exhausts were also reassuring in battle fields
• The third was its easy maintenance feature. The compact and light weight power pack could replace easily and had the low failure rate. The engine could start easily at a cooling environment without any warm-up operation.But there were some problems in the exhaust. High temperature, large amount of exhaust gases emitted infrared signals and were attractive target to infrared seeking missiles. Infantry marching just after the tank should avoid these hot gases and get clear of the exhaust port. The exhaust guide was equipped lately to reduce this defect.

Turbine powered M1 Abrams shows many features of gas turbines

A tank like the M1 Abrams gets about .6 mpg, and a cargo vehicle like the M-1070 semi-trailer (designed to haul tanks) gets approximately 1.2 mpg.
The World's Biggest Fuel Consumer - Forbes


Good discussion of the MPG and fuel use while idling or at low speed here:
What is the mpg of a abrams tank

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.

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.

Not

THE M1A1/A2, needs massive logistical support

Any tank does.

For fun: Dutch stress test ;-)

Stress Test Crazy Dutch Army - youtubeportal- Watch YouTube In Pakistan