M1 trials in Pakistan

[xyxmt]

OP asking to separate myth from reality
and he is disapproving any and every argument presented as bogus and false and absurd.
the only argument he is willing to believe are his own.

 

[Jat Boy]

Abrahams M1 costs over $12m each
Leopard 2 $15m each

A CHINEASE T99 will cost $8 million each ( even china has only 300 in service)

your al khalids under$2 million

AL ZARRAR almost nothing

THAT IS THE ONE AND ONLY REASON YIOU DONT HAVE M1

 

[LeGenD]

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.

Q 1. If Pakistan Army was not interested in inducting a heavy MBT then why Zia-ul-Haq permitted trials of an M1A1 Abrams MBT in Pakistan?

It doesn't makes sense to conduct trials of a heavy MBT without any interest in it.

It is possible that Zia-ul-Haq understood the importance of inducting a heavy MBT in Pakistan Army due to developments in Afghanistan.

As for Pakistani accounts about poor performance of an M1A1 Abrams MBT during its trials in Pakistan, I find such accounts lacking in credibility on the grounds of available evidence. These accounts emerged [after] the death of Zia-ul-Haq.

Zia-ul-Haq was the not the only individual to die in the unfortunate C-130 related incident, 30 other individuals (including several high-profile Pakistan military officials and American VIPs) perished in the same incident. All of these individuals witnessed the trials in Bahawalpur.

Q 2. Who started the rumors of poor performance of an M1A1 Abrams MBT during its trials in Pakistan? [If there is an official Pakistan Army report about this event (as you have claimed) then its details should be disclosed to the public.]

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.

More questions:-

Q 3. Do you have access to this report?
Q 4. Why Pakistan Army not disclosing this report?

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

We should strive for truth.

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.

My intention is to counter disinformation.

Based on documented records and video evidence, M1A1 Abrams MBT:

1. have accurate main gun
2. have high quality TAS
3. is battle-proven
4. is successful in harsh environments

In the light of the aforementioned facts, Pakistani accounts do not make sense.

Now, should I trust available evidence (or) Pakistani accounts? You tell me...

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.

So a Type 59-II MBT is better then M1A1 Abrams MBT?

Looks like ISPR is not doing its homework.

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.

Specifications of M1 model:-

• 105 mm main gun (M68A1 Rifled cannon)
• Advanced Chobham armor
• Advanced suspension (torsion bars with rotary shock absorbers)
• Hydraulically stabilized turret/gun system
• Digital ballistic computer
• Laser range finder (LRF)
• Thermal imaging night sight (TIS)

NOTE: This model was ready for service in 1978.

Specifications of M1A1 model:-

• 120 mm main gun (M256 Smooth Bore cannon)
• Nuclear, biological, and chemical overpressure system
• Advanced Chobham armor
• Advanced suspension (torsion bars with rotary shock absorbers)
• Hydraulically stabilized turret/gun system
• Digital ballistic computer
• Laser range finder (LRF)
• Thermal imaging night sight (TIS)
• Onboard malfunction detection system
• Compartmented fuel/ammunition
• Single channel ground/air radio system (SINGCARS)

NOTE: This model was ready for service in 1985.

When fitted with the 120mm gun, the tank is designated M1A1, or M1A2. The M1A1 carries 40 rounds of 120mm ammunition; 34 in the turret bustle and six in a rear hull box. Maximum effective range is 3,000 meters.

Sources:-

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank
Main Battle Tank - M1, M1A1, and M1A2 Abrams

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.

Smooth Bore barrels are better then Rifled barrels. Smooth Bore barrels can fire more powerful rounds then Rifled barrels and also have longer life-span then Rifled barrels.

All modern MBTs (in compliance with NATO standards) are equipped with 120 mm Smooth Bore barrels manufactured by a German firm Rheinmetal.

Some information about Rifled and Smooth Bore main guns here: VEHICLE GUNS (Military Weapons)

The Rheinmetall-designed 120-mm, 44-cal smoothbore tank gun is the main armament for the German Leopard 2 and
US M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks (MBT). The US Army’s eventual adoption of the 120-mm gun reflected a belated concern that adversary tank armor might defeat the effective but smaller L7/M68 105-mm gun. Rheinmetall claims a 60% improvement in ballistic performance over the 105-mm.

The gun is the first heavy-caliber smoothbore gun in Western tanks, and its adoption (in preference to a rifled gun) was prompted by the desire to achieve high muzzle velocities without excessively shortening barrel life. High muzzle velocity, coupled with a higher cross-sectional loading (usually achieved by reducing the diameter of the Kinetic Energy Penetrator/KEP while retaining or increasing its mass), is currently seen as the most effective means of countering increases in armor thickness and quality.

The gun has a cold-drawn, seamless, autofrettaged tube with a chromium inner lining that improves wear resistance while firing fin-stabilized ammunition.

More information about M256 Smooth Bore main gun here: M256 120mm Smoothbore Gun

Even the relevant Wikipedia article have excellent information: Rheinmetall 120 mm gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Chinese Type 59-II MBT is equipped with a 105 mm Rifled main gun (This main gun is based on the design of British L-7).

IN BRIEF: Type 59-II MBT and M1 Abrams MBT are equipped with similar main guns. However, M1A1 Abrams MBT is equipped with a relatively superior main gun.

---

As far as simulation is concerned, Steel Beasts Pro is an excellent professional simulation software but it requires a subscription fee. I will try it some day.

Here is a footage of simulation of M1A1 Abrams MBT in Steel Beasts Pro:

Simulation can be conducted in different environments in this software.

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

Interesting...

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

Heavy MBTs, even in small numbers, are a force-multiplier.

India is developing and fielding heavy MBTs in small numbers.

ANALOGY: You don't need to induct 500 F-22 Raptor aircraft to ensure a potent strike capability; you can achieve wonders with even 50 of them with good decision-making.

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.

What is wrong with a 120 mm Smooth Bore main gun manufactured by Rheinmetall?

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

Interesting...

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.

Makes sense

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.

Makes sense.

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.

Makes sense.

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.

Pakistan acquires MBT parts from Ukraine, Russia and China. The latter 3 countries manufacture 125 mm Smooth Bore main guns for their modern MBTs.

Pakistan would not get a 120 mm Smooth Bore main gun (manufactured by Rheinmetall) unless it decides to acquire an MBT manufactured by a NATO member state.

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.

Bro,

History has its importance.

If Pakistan Army is under the illusion that modern MBTs (of NATO standards) are not a match for MBTs in its inventory then its current doctrine is based on this illusion. As a Pakistani, I would be concerned.

God forbid - if a Pakistan Army armored division has to face a NATO military armored division in a battle in Afghanistan and/or in the Middle East, it will be wiped out.

OP asking to separate myth from reality
and he is disapproving any and every argument presented as bogus and false and absurd.
the only argument he is willing to believe are his own.

My arguments are based on available evidence.

Would you put faith on available evidence or unverified claims?

I am not advocating induction of M1 series MBT in Pakistan Army but my point of contention is about the credibility of Pakistani accounts that imply poor performance of an M1A1 Abrams MBT in Bahawalpur. Based on available evidence, such Pakistani accounts lack in credibility.

I am sharing available evidence in my responses with fellow members in this thread but I am getting (claims) from some skeptics in return.

This is the situation: My assertion is that Earth is round and I have posted evidence to support my assertion, but skeptics are asserting that Earth is flat without providing adequate evidence to support their assertions.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Dutch stress test

That is one helluva stress test. One guy on left back row failed, rest were ice cool. Great stuff

 

[xyxmt]

My arguments are based on available evidence.

Would you put faith on available evidence or unverified claims?

I am not advocating induction of M1 series MBT in Pakistan Army but my point of contention is about the credibility of Pakistani accounts that imply poor performance of an M1A1 Abrams MBT in Bahawalpur. Based on available evidence, such Pakistani accounts lack in credibility.

I am sharing available evidence in my responses with fellow members in this thread but I am getting (claims) from some skeptics in return.

This is the situation: My assertion is that Earth is round and I have posted evidence to support my assertion, but skeptics are asserting that Earth is flat without providing adequate evidence to support their assertions.

Pakistan was evaluating a product for their own use, they tested it and disapproved it since it does not meet their requirements. They didnt have to make a documentary or publish a research paper. The evidences you are providing are the what we call the sale book from the manufacturer and it will show that product as the best in the world just like a brochure for any product. It was not the job of a buyer to publish defects in a product, specially in case of a US defense product.

 

[Signalian]

Q 1. If Pakistan Army was not interested in inducting a heavy MBT then why Zia-ul-Haq permitted trials of an M1A1 Abrams MBT in Pakistan?

It doesn't makes sense to conduct trials of a heavy MBT without any interest in it.

PA was interested in inducting M1A1 before the trails and but the decision was reversed after it.

It is possible that Zia-ul-Haq understood the importance of inducting a heavy MBT in Pakistan Army due to developments in Afghanistan.

Zia was getting many american modern weapons which modernized Pakistan army such as M113 APC, M109 & M110 Artillery, stinger SAM, AH-1 Cobra etc so he wanted to test the M1A1 too as M-48 Patton tank needed to be complemented. Afghanistan developments had no part in it, by 1987 USSR was suffering heavy losses and the tide of the war had turned.

As for Pakistani accounts about poor performance of an M1A1 Abrams MBT during its trials in Pakistan, I find such accounts lacking in credibility on the grounds of available evidence. These accounts emerged [after] the death of Zia-ul-Haq.

The lack of credibility is your opinion and you are entitled to it.The only evidence floating in public is through army officers which i find credible however the interest died down. I personally like the M1A1 but im not bothered if its inducted or not.

Zia-ul-Haq was the not the only individual to die in the unfortunate C-130 related incident, 30 other individuals (including several high-profile Pakistan military officials and American VIPs) perished in the same incident. All of these individuals witnessed the trials in Bahawalpur.

Even if all the top brass died, the reports are made by mid career officers like the rank of major, then approved by the chain of command in that order. Induction of a weapons system is a sensitive and lengthy process which requires many departments e.g. Armaments research(present in Rawalpindi) working together.

Q 2. Who started the rumors of poor performance of an M1A1 Abrams MBT during its trials in Pakistan? [If there is an official Pakistan Army report about this event (as you have claimed) then its details should be disclosed to the public.]
Q 4. Why Pakistan Army not disclosing this report?

Its completely at PA discretion to publicize the reports or not. and even if they decide not to, they can easily say its a confidential report and a matter of national security , end of story. They can further say that the enemy can get to know our procedures,processes and methodology of testing and trails for induction of a weapons system.

More questions:-
Q 3. Do you have access to this report?
We should strive for truth.

No, i dont. If i had, my replies would be very different.

My intention is to counter disinformation.

Based on documented records and video evidence, M1A1 Abrams MBT:

1. have accurate main gun
2. have high quality TAS
3. is battle-proven
4. is successful in harsh environments

In the light of the aforementioned facts, Pakistani accounts do not make sense.

Now, should I trust available evidence (or) Pakistani accounts? You tell me...


So a Type 59-II MBT is better then M1A1 Abrams MBT?

Looks like ISPR is not doing its homework.


Specifications of M1 model:-

• 105 mm main gun (M68A1 Rifled cannon)
• Advanced Chobham armor
• Advanced suspension (torsion bars with rotary shock absorbers)
• Hydraulically stabilized turret/gun system
• Digital ballistic computer
• Laser range finder (LRF)
• Thermal imaging night sight (TIS)

NOTE: This model was ready for service in 1978.

Specifications of M1A1 model:-

• 120 mm main gun (M256 Smooth Bore cannon)
• Nuclear, biological, and chemical overpressure system
• Advanced Chobham armor
• Advanced suspension (torsion bars with rotary shock absorbers)
• Hydraulically stabilized turret/gun system
• Digital ballistic computer
• Laser range finder (LRF)
• Thermal imaging night sight (TIS)
• Onboard malfunction detection system
• Compartmented fuel/ammunition
• Single channel ground/air radio system (SINGCARS)

NOTE: This model was ready for service in 1985.

When fitted with the 120mm gun, the tank is designated M1A1, or M1A2. The M1A1 carries 40 rounds of 120mm ammunition; 34 in the turret bustle and six in a rear hull box. Maximum effective range is 3,000 meters.

Sources:-

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank
Main Battle Tank - M1, M1A1, and M1A2 Abrams


Smooth Bore barrels are better then Rifled barrels. Smooth Bore barrels can fire more powerful rounds then Rifled barrels and also have longer life-span then Rifled barrels.

All modern MBTs (in compliance with NATO standards) are equipped with 120 mm Smooth Bore barrels manufactured by a German firm Rheinmetal.

Some information about Rifled and Smooth Bore main guns here: VEHICLE GUNS (Military Weapons)

The Rheinmetall-designed 120-mm, 44-cal smoothbore tank gun is the main armament for the German Leopard 2 and
US M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks (MBT). The US Army’s eventual adoption of the 120-mm gun reflected a belated concern that adversary tank armor might defeat the effective but smaller L7/M68 105-mm gun. Rheinmetall claims a 60% improvement in ballistic performance over the 105-mm.

The gun is the first heavy-caliber smoothbore gun in Western tanks, and its adoption (in preference to a rifled gun) was prompted by the desire to achieve high muzzle velocities without excessively shortening barrel life. High muzzle velocity, coupled with a higher cross-sectional loading (usually achieved by reducing the diameter of the Kinetic Energy Penetrator/KEP while retaining or increasing its mass), is currently seen as the most effective means of countering increases in armor thickness and quality.

The gun has a cold-drawn, seamless, autofrettaged tube with a chromium inner lining that improves wear resistance while firing fin-stabilized ammunition.

More information about M256 Smooth Bore main gun here: M256 120mm Smoothbore Gun

Even the relevant Wikipedia article have excellent information: Rheinmetall 120 mm gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinese Type 59-II MBT is equipped with a 105 mm Rifled main gun (This main gun is based on the design of British L-7).

IN BRIEF: Type 59-II MBT and M1 Abrams MBT are equipped with similar main guns. However, M1A1 Abrams MBT is equipped with a relatively superior main gun.

---

If you want to counter dis information, write a letter to ISPR and ask them about your querry.

One has to see the firing report to reach a conclusion. I am not sure if the Firing test was conducted between M256 and L-7 or M-256 and 100mm Cannon.and for example if it was conducted between M256 and L-7, what were the factors and criteria involved that enabled the L-7 to come on top. Was it the targeting system? were the Abrams crew unprepared?Did the test conditions favour Type-59? Was the aiming problem with short range targets or long range targets?

More importantly, was PA being offered an inferior M1A1 with inferior FCS(fire control system) or targeting system?

Rifled guns are more precise than smoothbore guns, Rifled guns theoretically cannot fire SABOT rounds but its been made possible by many armies. Rifled guns have shorter range than smoothbore guns. Challenger 2 still has rifled gun.

Smoothbore guns can fire all types of modern ammunition and have longer range and longer barrel life. PA has shifted to smoothbore with its modern tanks.I asked this from an Armd Corps officer and his reply was that for longer range we intend to gain accuracy by firing ATGM's from the tank gun.

Heavy MBTs, even in small numbers, are a force-multiplier.

India is developing and fielding heavy MBTs in small numbers.

ANALOGY: You don't need to induct 500 F-22 Raptor aircraft to ensure a potent strike capability; you can achieve wonders with even 50 of them with good decision-making.

Honestly, no.
The amount of technology that is put inside the tank makes it lethal, not necessarily its weight. A single round can disable a 70 ton tank as well as a 50 ton tank.

Secondly, owning a prime weapon makes it the first target of the enemy. Its commonly taught in warfare psychology that taking out enemy's prime weapon system breaks the morale in the ranks and can create havoc in chain of command.

Thirdly, if M1A1 was to be used in a single regiment then the sister armoured regiment of that brigade would have trouble not only keeping up with its powerful pace but also a logistic problem because both would require different ammunition.

Fourthly, if M1A1 was to be used in 3 independent squadrons of 14 tanks each assigned to different formations, its basic aim to create trouble in enemy lines by massive firepower would be no more. Infact it would just be supporting infantry, not a good idea.

50 tanks dont turn the tide of the war.

What is wrong with a 120 mm Smooth Bore main gun manufactured by Rheinmetall?

The gun is battle tested, i think its good. PA has reservations. If it wanted 120mm, it can install that on AK and AZ also but didnt.

Pakistan acquires MBT parts from Ukraine, Russia and China. The latter 3 countries manufacture 125 mm Smooth Bore main guns for their modern MBTs.

Pakistan would not get a 120 mm Smooth Bore main gun (manufactured by Rheinmetall) unless it decides to acquire an MBT manufactured by a NATO member state.

Acquisition of 120mm rheinmetall depends on the deal, how many pieces required , ammunition requirement and many other factors. however PA doesnt seem interested,

Bro,

History has its importance.

Yes i have read PA's action in black hawk down incident as well as PA's involvement in cambrain patrol. One is a real time rescue mission and the other is a competition with the best of the best.

If Pakistan Army is under the illusion that modern MBTs (of NATO standards) are not a match for MBTs in its inventory then its current doctrine is based on this illusion.

You seem to be in some sort of illusion however you are entitled to your own opinion.

PA is under no illusions. The training methods in PA concerning any branch of military are top notch and ensure good results. PA MBT are world class and can take on any enemy tank in the world. This is one of the reasons why the aggression of India dries down when its forces reaches the borders.

As a Pakistani, I would be concerned.

As a pakistani, there are many much more things to be concerned about than M1A1 failed induction in PA.


The matters of foremost concern are:

Pakistan Image in the world in current scenario of Terrorism
Pakistan political turmoil and failures of elected Government
Refugee problem in Pakistan
Radical thinking and extremism in Pakistan
Human Rights and Abuse in pakistan
Misuse of Authority in Pakistan

God forbid - if a Pakistan Army armored division has to face a NATO military armored division in a battle in Afghanistan and/or in the Middle East, it will be wiped out.

Thats your own perception and you are entitled to it. I strongly disagree.

My arguments are based on available evidence.

Would you put faith on available evidence or unverified claims?

I am not advocating induction of M1 series MBT in Pakistan Army but my point of contention is about the credibility of Pakistani accounts that imply poor performance of an M1A1 Abrams MBT in Bahawalpur. Based on available evidence, such Pakistani accounts lack in credibility.

I am sharing available evidence in my responses with fellow members in this thread but I am getting (claims) from some skeptics in return.

This is the situation: My assertion is that Earth is round and I have posted evidence to support my assertion, but skeptics are asserting that Earth is flat without providing adequate evidence to support their assertions.

Unless i hear story from both sides, i will not put faith on your one sided story.

I have your story but i havent heard original story from PA

 

[LeGenD]

Pakistan was evaluating a product for their own use, they tested it and disapproved it since it does not meet their requirements. They didnt have to make a documentary or publish a research paper. The evidences you are providing are the what we call the sale book from the manufacturer and it will show that product as the best in the world just like a brochure for any product. It was not the job of a buyer to publish defects in a product, specially in case of a US defense product.

Sale book from the manufacture? Kindly point out a single example of a marketing piece that I have cited for M1A1 Abrams MBT from its manufacturer.

I have cited information from published records of good performance of M1A1 Abrams MBT in battles, pictorial evidence of testing of M1A1 Abrams MBT in different environments and video evidence of accuracy of M1A1 Abrams MBT in firing to support my arguments. I have also addressed some misconceptions about technical characteristics of M1 series MBT with verifiable technical information.

I would trust 'available evidence' over unsubstantiated claims any day, period. Any sane person would.

 

[Dazzler]

Q 1. If Pakistan Army was not interested in inducting a heavy MBT then why Zia-ul-Haq permitted trials of an M1A1 Abrams MBT in Pakistan?

It doesn't makes sense to conduct trials of a heavy MBT without any interest in it.

It is possible that Zia-ul-Haq understood the importance of inducting a heavy MBT in Pakistan Army due to developments in Afghanistan.

As for Pakistani accounts about poor performance of an M1A1 Abrams MBT during its trials in Pakistan, I find such accounts lacking in credibility on the grounds of available evidence. These accounts emerged [after] the death of Zia-ul-Haq.

Zia-ul-Haq was the not the only individual to die in the unfortunate C-130 related incident, 30 other individuals (including several high-profile Pakistan military officials and American VIPs) perished in the same incident. All of these individuals witnessed the trials in Bahawalpur.

Q 2. Who started the rumors of poor performance of an M1A1 Abrams MBT during its trials in Pakistan? [If there is an official Pakistan Army report about this event (as you have claimed) then its details should be disclosed to the public.]


More questions:-

Q 3. Do you have access to this report?
Q 4. Why Pakistan Army not disclosing this report?


We should strive for truth.


My intention is to counter disinformation.

Based on documented records and video evidence, M1A1 Abrams MBT:

1. have accurate main gun
2. have high quality TAS
3. is battle-proven
4. is successful in harsh environments

In the light of the aforementioned facts, Pakistani accounts do not make sense.

Now, should I trust available evidence (or) Pakistani accounts? You tell me...


So a Type 59-II MBT is better then M1A1 Abrams MBT?

Looks like ISPR is not doing its homework.


Specifications of M1 model:-

• 105 mm main gun (M68A1 Rifled cannon)
• Advanced Chobham armor
• Advanced suspension (torsion bars with rotary shock absorbers)
• Hydraulically stabilized turret/gun system
• Digital ballistic computer
• Laser range finder (LRF)
• Thermal imaging night sight (TIS)

NOTE: This model was ready for service in 1978.

Specifications of M1A1 model:-

• 120 mm main gun (M256 Smooth Bore cannon)
• Nuclear, biological, and chemical overpressure system
• Advanced Chobham armor
• Advanced suspension (torsion bars with rotary shock absorbers)
• Hydraulically stabilized turret/gun system
• Digital ballistic computer
• Laser range finder (LRF)
• Thermal imaging night sight (TIS)
• Onboard malfunction detection system
• Compartmented fuel/ammunition
• Single channel ground/air radio system (SINGCARS)

NOTE: This model was ready for service in 1985.

When fitted with the 120mm gun, the tank is designated M1A1, or M1A2. The M1A1 carries 40 rounds of 120mm ammunition; 34 in the turret bustle and six in a rear hull box. Maximum effective range is 3,000 meters.

Sources:-

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank
Main Battle Tank - M1, M1A1, and M1A2 Abrams


Smooth Bore barrels are better then Rifled barrels. Smooth Bore barrels can fire more powerful rounds then Rifled barrels and also have longer life-span then Rifled barrels.

All modern MBTs (in compliance with NATO standards) are equipped with 120 mm Smooth Bore barrels manufactured by a German firm Rheinmetal.

Some information about Rifled and Smooth Bore main guns here: VEHICLE GUNS (Military Weapons)

The Rheinmetall-designed 120-mm, 44-cal smoothbore tank gun is the main armament for the German Leopard 2 and
US M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks (MBT). The US Army’s eventual adoption of the 120-mm gun reflected a belated concern that adversary tank armor might defeat the effective but smaller L7/M68 105-mm gun. Rheinmetall claims a 60% improvement in ballistic performance over the 105-mm.

The gun is the first heavy-caliber smoothbore gun in Western tanks, and its adoption (in preference to a rifled gun) was prompted by the desire to achieve high muzzle velocities without excessively shortening barrel life. High muzzle velocity, coupled with a higher cross-sectional loading (usually achieved by reducing the diameter of the Kinetic Energy Penetrator/KEP while retaining or increasing its mass), is currently seen as the most effective means of countering increases in armor thickness and quality.

The gun has a cold-drawn, seamless, autofrettaged tube with a chromium inner lining that improves wear resistance while firing fin-stabilized ammunition.

More information about M256 Smooth Bore main gun here: M256 120mm Smoothbore Gun

Even the relevant Wikipedia article have excellent information: Rheinmetall 120 mm gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Chinese Type 59-II MBT is equipped with a 105 mm Rifled main gun (This main gun is based on the design of British L-7).

IN BRIEF: Type 59-II MBT and M1 Abrams MBT are equipped with similar main guns. However, M1A1 Abrams MBT is equipped with a relatively superior main gun.

---

As far as simulation is concerned, Steel Beasts Pro is an excellent professional simulation software but it requires a subscription fee. I will try it some day.

Here is a footage of simulation of M1A1 Abrams MBT in Steel Beasts Pro:

Simulation can be conducted in different environments in this software.


Interesting...


Heavy MBTs, even in small numbers, are a force-multiplier.

India is developing and fielding heavy MBTs in small numbers.

ANALOGY: You don't need to induct 500 F-22 Raptor aircraft to ensure a potent strike capability; you can achieve wonders with even 50 of them with good decision-making.


What is wrong with a 120 mm Smooth Bore main gun manufactured by Rheinmetall?


Interesting...


Makes sense


Makes sense.


Makes sense.


Pakistan acquires MBT parts from Ukraine, Russia and China. The latter 3 countries manufacture 125 mm Smooth Bore main guns for their modern MBTs.

Pakistan would not get a 120 mm Smooth Bore main gun (manufactured by Rheinmetall) unless it decides to acquire an MBT manufactured by a NATO member state.


Bro,

History has its importance.

If Pakistan Army is under the illusion that modern MBTs (of NATO standards) are not a match for MBTs in its inventory then its current doctrine is based on this illusion. As a Pakistani, I would be concerned.

God forbid - if a Pakistan Army armored division has to face a NATO military armored division in a battle in Afghanistan and/or in the Middle East, it will be wiped out.


My arguments are based on available evidence.

Would you put faith on available evidence or unverified claims?

I am not advocating induction of M1 series MBT in Pakistan Army but my point of contention is about the credibility of Pakistani accounts that imply poor performance of an M1A1 Abrams MBT in Bahawalpur. Based on available evidence, such Pakistani accounts lack in credibility.

I am sharing available evidence in my responses with fellow members in this thread but I am getting (claims) from some skeptics in return.

This is the situation: My assertion is that Earth is round and I have posted evidence to support my assertion, but skeptics are asserting that Earth is flat without providing adequate evidence to support their assertions.

Save your breathe mate, the M1 trials were so dismal that army came up with new protocols including the new MBT being lighter than 50tonnes, should operate on a diesel engine and be mobile in desert, the M1 that was tested had none of the above and operating it was a nightmare for a country like Pakistan.

 

[LeGenD]

PA was interested in inducting M1A1 before the trails and but the decision was reversed after it.

Look! This is still a claim.

You have admitted that you don't have access to the official report of Pakistan Army regarding this matter. Therefore, you are forced to rely on hearsay and claims just like anybody else who doesn't have access to it.

It is just as likely that;

1. Mirza Aslam Beg was not interested in inducting an American heavy MBT in Pakistan Army due cost related considerations and/or political reasons.

OR

2. US backtracked from the deal due to political reasons (according to Steven J. Zaloga).

Zia was getting many american modern weapons which modernized Pakistan army such as M113 APC, M109 & M110 Artillery, stinger SAM, AH-1 Cobra etc so he wanted to test the M1A1 too as M-48 Patton tank needed to be complemented. Afghanistan developments had no part in it, by 1987 USSR was suffering heavy losses and the tide of the war had turned.

OK

So why was Zia-ul-Haq pursuing modern American weapons?

The lack of credibility is your opinion and you are entitled to it.The only evidence floating in public is through army officers which i find credible however the interest died down. I personally like the M1A1 but im not bothered if its inducted or not.

My 'opinion' is based on available evidence. I am (not) making 'claims' about the credibility of M1A1 Abrams MBT. You understand the importance of available evidence, right?

Pakistani accounts are (more or less) unsubstantiated claims in the light of available evidence.

PROOF (i.e. video evidence) of poor performance of an M1A1 Abrams MBT during its trials in Pakistan is absent. So why should I trust Pakistani accounts and ignore available evidence? This is a matter of common sense.

You think that an inadequate MBT would satisfy the needs of the best army in the world (i.e. US army)?

Even if all the top brass died, the reports are made by mid career officers like the rank of major, then approved by the chain of command in that order. Induction of a weapons system is a sensitive and lengthy process which requires many departments e.g. Armaments research(present in Rawalpindi) working together.

So who made this report for Pakistan Army? Was he an eye-witness?

Its completely at PA discretion to publicize the reports or not. and even if they decide not to, they can easily say its a confidential report and a matter of national security , end of story. They can further say that the enemy can get to know our procedures,processes and methodology of testing and trails for induction of a weapons sysPertem.

Then this doesn't helps your argument and/or the position of critics in this debate, my friend.

---

Here is the report of Australian Army for reference: http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/uploads/documents/2007 08_audit_report_1.pdf

Australian Army was looking for a suitable replacement of Leopard AS1 MBT in its inventory in 2004. Australian Army narrowed down its choices to American M1A1 (AIMS) Abrams MBT and Swiss RUAG PANZER 87/WE MBT and conducted trials of both; it chose M1A1 (AIMS) Abrams MBT on the grounds of a thorough assessment.

NOTE: RUAG PANZER 87/WE is a customized German Leopard 2 series MBT (according to the requirements of Swiss Army). Here is some information: RUAG: Leopard 2 midlife upgrade

If you want to counter dis information, write a letter to ISPR and ask them about your querry.

I am not sure if ISPR would entertain my query.

One has to see the firing report to reach a conclusion. I am not sure if the Firing test was conducted between M256 and L-7 or M-256 and 100mm Cannon.and for example if it was conducted between M256 and L-7, what were the factors and criteria involved that enabled the L-7 to come on top. Was it the targeting system? were the Abrams crew unprepared?Did the test conditions favour Type-59? Was the aiming problem with short range targets or long range targets?

Indeed.

So who will provide these details?

Meanwhile, check this evidence: Imgur (Impressive, right?)

More importantly, was PA being offered an inferior M1A1 with inferior FCS(fire control system) or targeting system?

Possible.

Rifled guns are more precise than smoothbore guns, Rifled guns theoretically cannot fire SABOT rounds but its been made possible by many armies. Rifled guns have shorter range than smoothbore guns. Challenger 2 still has rifled gun.

Smoothbore guns can fire all types of modern ammunition and have longer range and longer barrel life. PA has shifted to smoothbore with its modern tanks.I asked this from an Armd Corps officer and his reply was that for longer range we intend to gain accuracy by firing ATGM's from the tank gun.

More precise? What do you mean?

Honestly, no.
The amount of technology that is put inside the tank makes it lethal, not necessarily its weight. A single round can disable a 70 ton tank as well as a 50 ton tank.

Secondly, owning a prime weapon makes it the first target of the enemy. Its commonly taught in warfare psychology that taking out enemy's prime weapon system breaks the morale in the ranks and can create havoc in chain of command.

Thirdly, if M1A1 was to be used in a single regiment then the sister armoured regiment of that brigade would have trouble not only keeping up with its powerful pace but also a logistic problem because both would require different ammunition.

Fourthly, if M1A1 was to be used in 3 independent squadrons of 14 tanks each assigned to different formations, its basic aim to create trouble in enemy lines by massive firepower would be no more. Infact it would just be supporting infantry, not a good idea.

50 tanks dont turn the tide of the war.

1. Armor strongly influences the weight of an MBT. A heavy MBT have superior protection against external threats then a medium MBT.

2. Depends upon the battlefield scenario. Troops do not challenge armored thrusts in the open.

3. You have a point here.

4. Why not?

The 120 mm main gun on the M1A1 and M1A2, combined with the powerful 1,500-hp turbine engine and special armor, make the Abrams tank particularly suitable for attacking or defending against large concentrations of heavy armor forces on a highly lethal battlefield and for other roles that require shock effect and mobile direct firepower to support Army mission requirements.

Source: http://www.ausa.org/publications/armymagazine/archive/2010/10/Documents/Weapons4_Gound_1010.pdf

The gun is battle tested, i think its good. PA has reservations. If it wanted 120mm, it can install that on AK and AZ also but didnt.

It is easier for Pakistan Army to acquire 125 mm Smooth Bore main gun of Russian origin then 120 mm Smooth Bore main gun of German origin.

B/W This may surprise you:

The much superior penetration capabilities of the M829A1 compared to Soviet 125mm ammunition were due to a variety of factors. The NATO 120mm gun offered higher chamber pressures than the Soviet 125mm gun: 5,650 bar versus 4,600 bar which provides some indication of the amount of energy exerted on the projectile. The Soviet use of split ammunition also limited the length of the penetrator dart. Although the Soviet 125mm gun had a higher muzzle velocity, the short penetrator length required wider fins that led to a more rapid loss of speed at longer ranges compared to the long-rod penetrator of the US projectile.

Source: M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural - Osprey Publishing

Now you understand the quality of 120 mm Smooth Bore main gun of NATO standards?

Unfortunately for Pakistan, Western military products are sanction-prone and therefore less likely to be selected.

Acquisition of 120mm rheinmetall depends on the deal, how many pieces required , ammunition requirement and many other factors. however PA doesnt seem interested,

See above

Yes i have read PA's action in black hawk down incident as well as PA's involvement in cambrain patrol. One is a real time rescue mission and the other is a competition with the best of the best.

How are these examples relevant for armor-oriented battles (or Tank battles)?

You seem to be in some sort of illusion however you are entitled to your own opinion.

PA is under no illusions. The training methods in PA concerning any branch of military are top notch and ensure good results. PA MBT are world class and can take on any enemy tank in the world. This is one of the reasons why the aggression of India dries down when its forces reaches the borders.

I am under no illusion.

If a serving Pakistan Army major believes that MBT (of NATO standards) are inferior to MBT in the inventory of Pakistan Army then this speaks volumes about the knowledge base of Pakistan Army personnel in general.

I do not doubt the quality of training standards of individuals in Pakistan Army but training [itself] does not makes considerable difference; situation awareness, strategy and knowledge are also important determinants of the outcome in a battle in modern times.

India does not fears Pakistan's conventional military capability, it is concerned about Pakistan's nuclear capability and relevant doctrine. Pakistan is developing tactical nukes to discourage India from invading Pakistani territory in a war. In this manner, Pakistan is offsetting the gap in the conventional military capability of the two nations.

As a pakistani, there are many much more things to be concerned about than M1A1 failed induction in PA.

The matters of foremost concern are:

Pakistan Image in the world in current scenario of Terrorism
Pakistan political turmoil and failures of elected Government
Refugee problem in Pakistan
Radical thinking and extremism in Pakistan
Human Rights and Abuse in pakistan
Misuse of Authority in Pakistan

Indeed.

But this discussion about the disinformation within the military ranks of Pakistan and its consequences.

Thats your own perception and you are entitled to it. I strongly disagree.

You may believe in the myth of invincibility of Pakistan Army but I am realistic in my assessments.

I suppose that you have heard about the Battle of Asal Uttar (1965) and the Battle of Longewala (1971), right?

Both of the aforementioned battles involved armored thrusts from the Pakistan Army in to Indian territory and both represent failure of Pakistan Army armor tactics.

For comparison, explore the topic of Operation Desert Storm (1991) and read about the Battle of 73 Easting and the Battle of Al-Burqan. Start from this source: M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural - Osprey Publishing

Unless i hear story from both sides, i will not put faith on your one sided story.

I have your story but i havent heard original story from PA

My one-sided story? I am not in the habit of making unsubstantiated claims, my friend.

I am providing information from several sources to support my arguments. Pay attention to available evidence.

Save your breathe mate, the M1 trials were so dismal that army came up with new protocols including the new MBT being lighter than 50tonnes, should operate on a diesel engine and be mobile in desert, the M1 that was tested had none of the above and operating it was a nightmare for a country like Pakistan.

I am sorry Sir, but this assessment also gives the vibe of an unsubstantiated claim or a concocted story.

MOBILITY

The M1A1 Abrams was powered by an AVCO-Lycoming AGT-1500 gas-turbine engine. This offered 1,500hp or about 23hp/t. Turbines provide more power for a lighter weight than did comparable diesels of the time, and offered superior sustained high-speed travel; their main drawback was higher fuel consumption. During typical peacetime training exercises, US tankers found that the M1A1 Abrams could operate for about a day on a single load of fuel compared to about three days for the earlier M60A3 tank. The M1A1 had a notional road range of about 290 miles; ideal fuel consumption was 1.8 gallons per mile. The Abrams’ actual range was quite variable, and usually lower, because turbine engines consume more fuel at idle than comparable diesel tank engines. Modern tanks do not shut off their engines when static since it is necessary to keep the batteries charged to operate various electrical systems, including the radio and fire-control system. The M1A1 had an hourly fuel consumption of 10.8gal at idle, 44.6gal on the road and 56.6gal cross-country. The main solution to the Abrams’ fuel consumption problem was to provide adequate logistical support – an Abrams tank battalion had 16 HEMTT tanker trucks each carrying 2,500gal of fuel. The T-72M1 was powered by a V-46-6 diesel engine producing 780hp. This gave the T-72M1 a power-to-weight ratio of about 19.8hp/t and a maximum road speed of about 37mph – somewhat less than the M1A1. Internal fuel capacity was 1,000 liters (264gal) and a further 400 liters were typically carried in two external drums. The T-72 had an optimal fuel consumption of one gallon per mile, so even though it only carried about half the internal fuel of the M1A1, its average road range was about the same. The M1A1 had better mobility than the T-72M1 in terms of actual power per ton as well as better ergonomic design of the crew stations; however, the T-72M1 offered better fuel economy.

Source: M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural - Osprey Publishing

More importantly;

Innovations in the M1A1 design had significant tactical effects, contributing to the fast tempo of operations and the ability to operate during the day or at night even in poor weather conditions. The 120mm gun and the associated fire-control system was stunningly lethal and this was the first war that saw tanks firing accurately on the move on a routine basis. The Gulf War was also the first war to see the extensive use of thermal imaging sights; this technology alone was a major factor in the ability of US heavy-maneuver battalions to fight 24 hours a day and to stand off and destroy Iraqi units during poor daytime weather when targets were otherwise not visible. The primary lessons learned from tank battles in World War II had been that the side that found the enemy first, engaged first, and hit first was most often victorious. The turbine engine, for all the headaches caused by its prodigious fuel consumption, provided the Abrams battalions with the effortless speed to smash through Iraqi defensive positions before they could react.

Source: M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural - Osprey Publishing

---

Now, kindly explain to me that which MBT (in the inventory of Pakistan Army) had superior mobility then the M1A1 Abrams MBT during 1980s. Provide technical information, if necessary.

Type 59-II MBT was originally equipped with a 580 hp diesel engine and its output was 14.4 hp/t. Even the significantly upgraded Type 59-II (Al-Zarrar) MBT is equipped with a 730 hp diesel engine and its output is 18.3 hp/t.

Mobility summary:-

M1A1 Abrams MBT (Original) = 23 hp / tonne

T-72M1 MBT (Original) = 19.8 hp / tonne

Al-Zarrar MBT = 18.3 hp / tonne

Type 59-II MBT (Original) = 14.4 hp / tonne

 

[Signalian]

Look! This is still a claim.

You have admitted that you don't have access to the official report of Pakistan Army regarding this matter. Therefore, you are forced to rely on hearsay and claims just like anybody else who doesn't have access to it.

I have been quite clear from the start about where i got the information from. I have not with held any news that i had about this scenario.

It is just as likely that;

1. Mirza Aslam Beg was not interested in inducting an American heavy MBT in Pakistan Army due cost related considerations and/or political reasons.

OR

2. US backtracked from the deal due to political reasons (according to Steven J. Zaloga).

This is news to me, i havent heard any of this before.

OK

So why was Zia-ul-Haq pursuing modern American weapons?

Chinese weapons were technologically behind western tech in 1980's. Pakistan had been using american and british weapons since independence.

My 'opinion' is based on available evidence. I am (not) making 'claims' about the credibility of M1A1 Abrams MBT. You understand the importance of available evidence, right?

Pakistani accounts are (more or less) unsubstantiated claims in the light of available evidence.

PROOF (i.e. video evidence) of poor performance of an M1A1 Abrams MBT during its trials in Pakistan is absent. So why should I trust Pakistani accounts and ignore available evidence? This is a matter of common sense.

Common sense says that a decision cannot be passed unless the story is heard from both sides. This sense exists in courts too. The judge just cannot hear one side of the story and give a verdict, he hears the story from both sides and then passes on a verdict.

I find it very ignorant on my part too if i hear the rosy side of the story and like it due to its presentation and facts and proof and then start thinking yeah this story has more substance so forget the story from the other side. No doesnt work for me this way.

I cannot do this unless i get to see whats written in PA reports. Also i would rather believe a major from PA than adhere to online arguements. The first reason is that im closer to PA in real life. i know very well how things go about there. Secondly, for you,an army major giving a statement might be BS, for me, its not. Like i said before, that major can get court martial over one loose statement. Things work in very different way when you wear a uniform.

You think that an inadequate MBT would satisfy the needs of the best army in the world (i.e. US army)?

I never called M1 inadequate. an inferior version yes maybe. Iraqis got inferior M1.

So who made this report for Pakistan Army? Was he an eye-witness?

I said that as an example that junior or mid career officers do all the technical and report stuff.

Then this doesn't helps your argument and/or the position of critics in this debate, my friend.

LOL, for me its not about winning an argument online. Things are very different online and in real life. Look at this thread for example: you can bring any proof, any evidence you want...you will get nowhere because PA side of story is not publicized in detail.

Here is the report of Australian Army for reference: http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/uploads/documents/2007 08_audit_report_1.pdf

Australian Army was looking for a suitable replacement of Leopard AS1 MBT in its inventory in 2004. Australian Army narrowed down its choices to American M1A1 (AIMS) Abrams MBT and Swiss RUAG PANZER 87/WE MBT and conducted trials of both; it chose M1A1 (AIMS) Abrams MBT on the grounds of a thorough assessment.

NOTE: RUAG PANZER 87/WE is a customized German Leopard 2 series MBT (according to the requirements of Swiss Army). Here is some information: RUAG: Leopard 2 midlife upgrade

Every country has different requirements and every country can be offered different variant.

I am not sure if ISPR would entertain my query.

See, in real life PA will show you the stick, however online you can prove to be an expert on the subject.

So who will provide these details?

PA, which i doubt they ever will.

More precise? What do you mean?

accurate.

1. Armor strongly influences the weight of an MBT. A heavy MBT have superior protection against external threats then a medium MBT.

A 50 ton tank can be as lethal as a 70 ton tank. Leclerc is 55 Ton, doesnt make it less lethal.

[/QUOTE]
2. Depends upon the battlefield scenario. Troops do not challenge armored thrusts in the open.
[/QUOTE]
In a battlefield, many things can happen, some due to planning, other due to any contingency due to time or resources.

[/QUOTE]
4. Why not?
[/QUOTE]
Infantry support role is given to 2nd tier tanks e.g Type-69

The 120 mm main gun on the M1A1 and M1A2, combined with the powerful 1,500-hp turbine engine and special armor, make the Abrams tank particularly suitable for attacking or defending against large concentrations of heavy armor forces on a highly lethal battlefield and for other roles that require shock effect and mobile direct firepower to support Army mission requirements.

Source: http://www.ausa.org/publications/armymagazine/archive/2010/10/Documents/Weapons4_Gound_1010.pdf


It is easier for Pakistan Army to acquire 125 mm Smooth Bore main gun of Russian origin then 120 mm Smooth Bore main gun of German origin.

B/W This may surprise you:

The much superior penetration capabilities of the M829A1 compared to Soviet 125mm ammunition were due to a variety of factors. The NATO 120mm gun offered higher chamber pressures than the Soviet 125mm gun: 5,650 bar versus 4,600 bar which provides some indication of the amount of energy exerted on the projectile. The Soviet use of split ammunition also limited the length of the penetrator dart. Although the Soviet 125mm gun had a higher muzzle velocity, the short penetrator length required wider fins that led to a more rapid loss of speed at longer ranges compared to the long-rod penetrator of the US projectile.

Source: M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural - Osprey Publishing

Now you understand the quality of 120 mm Smooth Bore main gun of NATO standards?

Unfortunately for Pakistan, Western military products are sanction-prone and therefore less likely to be selected.

I have already said 120mm is good. I think acquisition of 125mm is not due to 120mm being sanction prone.

How are these examples relevant for armor-oriented battles (or Tank battles)?

I have already told you that PA has come a long way in modernization of equipment and tactics in armoured warfare. Use of tanks in urban warfare against TTP has been exteremely effective.

I am under no illusion.

If a serving Pakistan Army major believes that MBT (of NATO standards) are inferior to MBT in the inventory of Pakistan Army then this speaks volumes about the knowledge base of Pakistan Army personnel in general.

I do not doubt the quality of training standards of individuals in Pakistan Army but training [itself] does not makes considerable difference; situation awareness, strategy and knowledge are also important determinants of the outcome in a battle in modern times.

Even if the enemy feels good about something, still PA wont let out the truth come out to keep the enemy thinking towards a different direction. Therefore if you are trying to ascertain the knowledge of PA through the statement of that major, i cannot say much then. i guess the staff courses, NDU courses and the PA officers sent abroad and also the foreign army officers coming to pakistan is useless too. I think pon your statement the armoured warfare school in nowshera should be closed too.

India does not fears Pakistan's conventional military capability, it is concerned about Pakistan's nuclear capability and relevant doctrine. Pakistan is developing tactical nukes to discourage India from invading Pakistani territory in a war. In this manner, Pakistan is offsetting the gap in the conventional military capability of the two nations.

Okay, this is by far the funniest thing you have said the whole day i cant stop laughing

Mate, Pakistan became nuclear in 90's.

so what was stopping India from attacking and completely eliminating Pakistan from 47 to 90's?

Man i like you you talk too much without thinking sometimes

You may believe in the myth of invincibility of Pakistan Army but I am realistic in my assessments.

Your realism has not taken into account the undeniable achievements of PA against all odds in many scenarios. Your realism is stuck at dictating the wonderfulness of M1 Abrams.
I dont consider PA invincible but yes if you want to open this can of worms, go ahead.

I suppose that you have heard about the Battle of Asal Uttar (1965) and the Battle of Longewala (1971), right?
Both of the aforementioned battles involved armored thrusts from the Pakistan Army in to Indian territory and both represent failure of Pakistan Army armor tactics.
For comparison, explore the topic of Operation Desert Storm (1991) and read about the Battle of 73 Easting and the Battle of Al-Burqan. Start from this source: M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural - Osprey Publishing

So according to you, the tactics and strategy that PA still uses today as of 2015 are of 1965 and 1971 ?

Mate honestly

My one-sided story? I am not in the habit of making unsubstantiated claims, my friend.

I am providing information from several sources to support my arguments. Pay attention to available evidence.

Yours is one side of the story, PA reports are nowehere to be seen. Therefore the battleground is yours to play and manouver
PA tested the tank and didnt want it, you can drag it all you want.

 

[HAIDER]

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

It failed terrain and aerial temperature test. ...tank totally failed in rice field and marshes. A region where major chances of tank combat expected. Very heavy and over heat.

 

[untitled]

@Sarge how come a smooth bore has longer range than a rifled barrel?

 

[Signalian]

@Sarge how come a smooth bore has longer range than a rifled barrel?

depends how you use it and the round used. HESH round can give range in rifled gun, ATGM can give range in smoothbore gun. The rifled gun tanks like Type-59/69 are relegated to infantry support not exactly countering enemy armour.PA uses APFSDS against enemy tanks and effectively uses SABOT in smoothbore gun, otherwise put HESH in rifled gun and achieve the longest range kill possible like 120mm gun of Challenger 1. Theoretically smoothbore also gains range due to higher muzzle velocity as there is no rifling to slow down the round.

 

[HAIDER]

Pakistan army inducted smooth bore, because it proven gun that can fire nuclear projectile.

 

[LeGenD]

It failed terrain and aerial temperature test. ...tank totally failed in rice field and marshes. A region where major chances of tank combat expected. Very heavy and over heat.

Half-truths, bias and lack of evidence. Typical of critics.

---

M1 series MBT can operate in all kinds of weather conditions. They are unlikely to fail an aerial temperate test.

It is capable of engaging the enemy in any weather, day or night on the multi-dimensional, non-linear battlefield using its firepower, manuever, and shock effect.

Source: M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank

---

M1 series MBT can traverse through amphibious environments. However, water depth is to be considered; at a certain depth, some precautions are needed to protect sensitive parts of the MBT. Here is a demonstration:

The arrangements (shown in the aforementioned video) are not mandatory if water depth does not approaches engine exhaust. Here is pictorial evidence:

---

However, I would like to point out a fact that MBT are generally not suitable for movements through marches and/or (wet) muddy environments. Incidents can happen in such terrain.

EXAMPLE 1: Below is a video of an M1A1 Abrams MBT getting stuck [in a ditch like area] in a (wet) muddy environment, but it manages to get out after some effort:

EXAMPLE 2: Below is a video of a T-90 series MBT getting stuck [in a ditch like area] of a (wet) muddy environment, but it is not able to get out on its own, and is towed out:

---

As for possibility of a major tank battle in the fields and marches? NO.

MBT can get stuck in marches, irrespective of their weight class (Medium or Heavy); evidence provided above. Though, a powerful gas turbine engine can do wonders in tough situations as apparent from a video of an M1A1 Abrams MBT above.

Major Indian armored thrusts are expected to come through desert environments and plains that are suitable for swift movement of Indian armor. This is apparent from the pattern and nature of Indian military exercises in recent years.

Read a paper - Indian Military’s Cold Start Doctrine: Capabilities, Limitations and Possible Response from Pakistan.

If an offensive operation is expected through the fields and marches, Indian Army will use military assets that are suitable for movement in such terrain. You can learn about this from developments during 1971 war.