M1 trials in Pakistan

[Beast]

I have a hard time believing that stuff. I’ve read that book and others, but it just boggles me that they performed so poorly, were they actively trying not to sell the tank? There’s got to be more behind it than the tank failing, because that would be a very isolated incident for the Abrams.

More like some can't give up the hype of western products and accept western can be inferior.

 

[DeusExAstra]

M1A2 variants have performed well in a large number of environments around the world including in Afghanistan.

I agree with your view about not many man-made bridges being strong enough to support M1A2 class moving through them due to its gross weight. This is where Logistics comes into play to make sure that M1A2 can be brought to locations where it is needed.

The Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine can be dubbed 'gas guzzler' but it also multi-fuel capable. It will operate on any grade of petrol, diesel, aviation fuel or kerosene. Some countries can afford this type of technology in numbers; others cannot.

General Dynamics is willing to offer more efficient engine to interested customers but potential replacements are not in demand. Therefore.

Well stated, but I have to disagree with you on the armor part. M1 Abrams is designed with SAFETY in mind on many counts including separation of the compartment for munitions from the crew. The M1A2 class is also extensively armored as a whole - this is one of the factors which contributed to its extreme gross weight.

These figures are authentic (declassified information). Baseline protection level(s) of the M1 Abrams variants are documented. Please keep in mind that protection level(s) of any MBT will vary subject to the type of munition in use against them in combat situations. These figures indicate protection level(s) of different MBT against Tandem (or another) vs. HEAT charges from a respectable distance.

The latest M1A2C is even more heavily armored than ever before but much about it is classified in the present.

M1A2 class can also be equipped with ERA and the sort for added protection:

Link: https://warhead.su/2018/03/09/t90-vs-abrams-u-kogo-kruche-bronya-i-chyotche-monitory

American-operated M1A2 units feature Depleted Uranium Armor treatments as well; this feature was not approved for EXPORTS to various customers. Australia might be the only customer which was obliged in this capacity but I am not sure.

Chinese Type-99 class is granted impressive levels of armor as well. Not exactly on the level of M1A2 class due to limited space but good enough for battles in neighboring environments.

About M1's lower front hull: those data is a bit.... questionable. The main point is - it's unlikely they changed hull protection before M1A2 SEP's. I mean, it's obvious, they used DU matrix in steel layers of its uranium "heavy armor" models, like H* series and early M1A2, but hull protection wasn't increased.

About 99's series: taking into accout the difference between 72M and 99 (not 99A) in UFP angle and according to few sources dated 2000 and 2001, I may assume, that it's frontal hull armor was about ~ 20mm steel - 50mm Al2O3 in fiberglass coverage - 15mm Al - 15mm air gap - 100mm of steel = ~200mm thickness and about ~585mm LOS. That was about less than 500mm KE protection level. If we consider they increased thickness for about ~20-40mm of HHS plate (by decreasing Al2O3 layer thickness) or something, they could've at least 220mm of thickness and about ~645mm LOS, which was about ~T-72B level of protection.

And if we talk about 99A's UFP, then I guess they changed it's angle back to ~68,5 degrees and incresed thickness of modular armor up to ~235-245mm by adding more steel. That's why 99A's hull could be rated for ~600mm against KE without using ERA, which is even better than T-72B late models.

 

[LeGenD]

The Abrams failed miserably in the tests and missed most of the targets, even stationery ones... In front of the whole top brass. Moreover the tank was manned by Americans.
Writes Brigadier Yusuf in his Bear Trap.

@iLION12345_1 @PakFactor

NO - I have a copy of this book and I can tell you that Brig. Mohammad Yusuf did not discuss M1A1 trials in it.

Your account is (originally) provided in A Case of Exploding Mangoes (2008) - a comic novel written by Mohammed Hanif. This is dubious source.

The M1A1 variant was equipped with Rheinmetall 120 mm Smoothbore cannon with a Laser Range Finder (LRF), Integrated Fire Control System (FCS) with onboard computer and a fully automatic gun stabilization system back in 1983. These technologies collectively ensured very good target engagement accuracy.

Link: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar-usa-120mm-gun-tank-m1e1-abrams/

"[The M1's] stabilized sighting system ensures that speed is combined with accurate firepower. Tankers are able to routinely hit 5-foot targets over a mile away while moving rapidly cross-country. This kind of shoot-on-the-move capability is made possible by design features of the fire control and improved suspension systems. ...the gunner need only squeeze the trigger to hit the target." - Lt. Gen. Louis C. Wagner Jr., Congressional Testimony, 1985.

+

The Hughes infrared Thermal Imaging System (TIS) senses a small difference in heat radiated by objects. This is converted to electrical signals which are displayed on a cathode ray tube, similar to a TV picture. This image also is projected into the gunner's eyepiece. His sight displays target range information, ready-to-fire, and other systems indications. It also indicates if the laser rangefinder has received more than one return. The fire control computer has data entry and test panels for fault diagnosis.

A stabilization system permits accurate firing on the move. The gunner merely places his graticule on the target, and uses the laser rangefinder to determine the range. Then a computer applies necessary angles, and the gunner opens fire. The computer also gets information from a wind sensor and a pendulum static cant sensor on the turret roof. The main gun has a muzzle reference system to measure the bend of the gun. The gunner manually sets battle sight range, ammunition type, barrel wear, muzzle reference compensation, barometric pressure, and ammunition temperature.

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank

+

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.

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

Unless the trials in Pakistan were (intentionally) botched, or the M1 variant which was dispatched to Pakistan suffered an unexpected malfunction, there is no way an M1A1 will fail to engage targets when manned by a well-trained crew.

Some members pointed out the issue of soft talcum-powder-like sand of the Bahawalpur desert(s) creeping into the gas turbine engine of the M1A1 while operating there. YES, this is possible. Americans experienced this issue in the Arabian Desert in 1990 and applied Clean Air Filter(s) to their M1 variants, to address it.

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.

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

US forces have learned to weather sand​

US forces have learned to weather sand

www.globalsecurity.org

WE need to look at Pakistani trials in the larger political context of the time as well:

Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions

The Chinese tanks are moving, while the others are standing still. Not really a fair comparison.

defence.pk

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

Emphasis mine. The political climate to enable further trials of the M1A1 in Pakistan with potential retrofits as per Pakistani requirements was simply NOT THERE.

The procurement process of the Chinese VT-4 MBT is very telling. This MBT was repeatedly trailed in Pakistan; some issues were identified and sorted out by the supplier as the trails progressed. Both the buyer and seller were committed to the deal and it materialized after some years. Therefore.

The latest M1 variants are the M1A1D and M1A2C respectively. These two are excellent on many counts and will do well in numerous sectors of Pakistan - hypothetically speaking.

About M1's lower front hull: those data is a bit.... questionable. The main point is - it's unlikely they changed hull protection before M1A2 SEP's. I mean, it's obvious, they used DU matrix in steel layers of its uranium "heavy armor" models, like H* series and early M1A2, but hull protection wasn't increased.

About 99's series: taking into accout the difference between 72M and 99 (not 99A) in UFP angle and according to few sources dated 2000 and 2001, I may assume, that it's frontal hull armor was about ~ 20mm steel - 50mm Al2O3 in fiberglass coverage - 15mm Al - 15mm air gap - 100mm of steel = ~200mm thickness and about ~585mm LOS. That was about less than 500mm KE protection level. If we consider they increased thickness for about ~20-40mm of HHS plate (by decreasing Al2O3 layer thickness) or something, they could've at least 220mm of thickness and about ~645mm LOS, which was about ~T-72B level of protection.

And if we talk about 99A's UFP, then I guess they changed it's angle back to ~68,5 degrees and incresed thickness of modular armor up to ~235-245mm by adding more steel. That's why 99A's hull could be rated for ~600mm against KE without using ERA, which is even better than T-72B late models.

This data:

- was declassified for public viewership by an American intelligence agency some years ago. I am not sure if this information is redacted but you can retrace it on War Thunder platforms.

Thanks for your input regardless.

 

[DeusExAstra]

NO - I have a copy of this book and I can tell you that Brig. Mohammad Yusuf did not discuss M1A1 trials in it.

Your account is (originally) provided in A Case of Exploding Mangoes (2008) - a comic novel written by Mohammed Hanif. This is dubious source.

The M1A1 variant was equipped with Rheinmetall 120 mm Smoothbore cannon with a Laser Range Finder (LRF), Integrated Fire Control System (FCS) with onboard computer and a fully automatic gun stabilization system back in 1983. These technologies collectively ensured very good target engagement accuracy.

Link: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar-usa-120mm-gun-tank-m1e1-abrams/

"[The M1's] stabilized sighting system ensures that speed is combined with accurate firepower. Tankers are able to routinely hit 5-foot targets over a mile away while moving rapidly cross-country. This kind of shoot-on-the-move capability is made possible by design features of the fire control and improved suspension systems. ...the gunner need only squeeze the trigger to hit the target." - Lt. Gen. Louis C. Wagner Jr., Congressional Testimony, 1985.

+

The Hughes infrared Thermal Imaging System (TIS) senses a small difference in heat radiated by objects. This is converted to electrical signals which are displayed on a cathode ray tube, similar to a TV picture. This image also is projected into the gunner's eyepiece. His sight displays target range information, ready-to-fire, and other systems indications. It also indicates if the laser rangefinder has received more than one return. The fire control computer has data entry and test panels for fault diagnosis.

A stabilization system permits accurate firing on the move. The gunner merely places his graticule on the target, and uses the laser rangefinder to determine the range. Then a computer applies necessary angles, and the gunner opens fire. The computer also gets information from a wind sensor and a pendulum static cant sensor on the turret roof. The main gun has a muzzle reference system to measure the bend of the gun. The gunner manually sets battle sight range, ammunition type, barrel wear, muzzle reference compensation, barometric pressure, and ammunition temperature.

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank

+

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.

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

Unless the trials in Pakistan were (intentionally) botched, or the M1 variant which was dispatched to Pakistan suffered an unexpected malfunction, there is no way an M1A1 will fail to engage targets when manned by a well-trained crew.

Some members pointed out the issue of soft talcum-powder-like sand of the Bahawalpur desert(s) creeping into the gas turbine engine of the M1A1 while operating there. YES, this is possible. Americans experienced this issue in the Arabian Desert in 1990 and applied Clean Air Filter(s) to their M1 variants, to address it.

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.

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

US forces have learned to weather sand​

US forces have learned to weather sand

www.globalsecurity.org

WE need to look at Pakistani trials in the larger political context of the time as well:

Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions

The Chinese tanks are moving, while the others are standing still. Not really a fair comparison.

defence.pk

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

Emphasis mine. The political climate to enable further trials of the M1A1 in Pakistan with potential retrofits as per Pakistani requirements was simply NOT THERE.

The procurement process of the Chinese VT-4 MBT is very telling. This MBT was repeatedly trailed in Pakistan; some issues were identified and sorted out by the supplier as the trails progressed. Both the buyer and seller were committed to the deal and it materialized after some years. Therefore.

The latest M1 variants are the M1A1D and M1A2C respectively. These two are excellent on many counts and will do well in numerous sectors of Pakistan - hypothetically speaking.


This data:

- was declassified for public viewership by an American intelligence agency some years ago. I am not sure if this information is redacted but you can retrace it on War Thunder platforms.

Thanks for your input regardless.

The main problem is,

Spoiler

It's based on P. Lakowkis's estimates. Meanwhile we know, that new types of non-uranium armor appeard after M1A1HA was in service. In addition, we know, that DU matrixes couldn't be used in it's hull because those few prototypes was only in military schools.

Spoiler

Second point is if they increased it's protection, that was done after new non-DU armor packages was introduced, so it's about SEP's modification, like those SEP ver. 1 and SEP ver. 2 equipped with weight imitators to assure hull will be since mass increased

Spoiler

And it was obviously done for SEP ver. 3

Spoiler

 

[Raja Porus]

NO - I have a copy of this book and I can tell you that Brig. Mohammad Yusuf did not discuss M1A1 trials in it

 

[Tomcats]

View attachment 814826

I'm a little skeptical, it just says it failed to 'score hits', no details on any specifics. It would be nice if there was a nice detailed and declassified account about the trials.

 

[LeGenD]

View attachment 814826

My bad. My eyesight disappoints me at times.

The statement does not disclose which variant it was. Multiple variants were developed back in those days as well.

The M1A1 should not underperform like that due to obvious reasons. But it is possible for any machine to malfunction at any point in time. Shit happens.

 

[Signalian]

My bad. My eyesight disappoints me at times.

The statement does not disclose which variant it was. Multiple variants were developed back in those days as well.

The M1A1 should not underperform like that due to obvious reasons. But it is possible for any machine to malfunction at any point in time. Shit happens.

Found more:

The tank trial was a shambles. The 55-ton M l/Al behemoth, designed for the cleaner climes and hard surfaces of Europe and North America, did not fare too well in the desert of the Tamewali. A film of the trials shows the tank trying to fire on the move and from a stationary position, surrounded by clouds of dust.92 But the movement of the tanks was seriously constrained by the fact that its engines sucked up the fine dust of Tamewali and clogged its filters, jamming the Chrysler turbine engines. The most pathetic sight was of the tank trying to climb up a dirt ramp built at the site, getting stuck, and then sliding sideways off the ramp like a drunken sailor. Clearly, this was not the tank for the Pakistan Army.

 

[PakFactor]

Found more:

The tank trial was a shambles. The 55-ton M l/Al behemoth, designed for the cleaner climes and hard surfaces of Europe and North America, did not fare too well in the desert of the Tamewali. A film of the trials shows the tank trying to fire on the move and from a stationary position, surrounded by clouds of dust.92 But the movement of the tanks was seriously constrained by the fact that its engines sucked up the fine dust of Tamewali and clogged its filters, jamming the Chrysler turbine engines. The most pathetic sight was of the tank trying to climb up a dirt ramp built at the site, getting stuck, and then sliding sideways off the ramp like a drunken sailor. Clearly, this was not the tank for the Pakistan Army.

You have a link to the video?

 

[Signalian]

You have a link to the video?

Crossed Swords by Shuja nawaz
Page 394

He says in reference 92:

I was shown this film by a defence attache at the Pakistan embassy in Washington after the event

 

[Reichmarshal]

Americans achieved their objective from the trials

 

[alimobin memon]

Found more:

The tank trial was a shambles. The 55-ton M l/Al behemoth, designed for the cleaner climes and hard surfaces of Europe and North America, did not fare too well in the desert of the Tamewali. A film of the trials shows the tank trying to fire on the move and from a stationary position, surrounded by clouds of dust.92 But the movement of the tanks was seriously constrained by the fact that its engines sucked up the fine dust of Tamewali and clogged its filters, jamming the Chrysler turbine engines. The most pathetic sight was of the tank trying to climb up a dirt ramp built at the site, getting stuck, and then sliding sideways off the ramp like a drunken sailor. Clearly, this was not the tank for the Pakistan Army.

Read this too in book. This in my opinion is too negative paragraph by Shuja Nawaz. It may have had drawbacks back then but now its a formidable tank and worked good in Afghanistan and IRAQ.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I think once the Altay MBT enters production, we might see the Pakistan Army bring it over for tests. I think the VT-4 induction paves the way for the PA's tanks getting heavier on average. So, if you're enhancing the existing logistics and infrastructure, you might as well see if the even heavier MBTs (like Altay) can fare in our environment.

 

[farooqbhai007]

I think once the Altay MBT enters production, we might see the Pakistan Army bring it over for tests. I think the VT-4 induction paves the way for the PA's tanks getting heavier on average. So, if you're enhancing the existing logistics and infrastructure, you might as well see if the even heavier MBTs (like Altay) can fare in our environment.

With the new tatra bridge layer the limit is 75ton and with new sino truck floating bridge the limit is 70ton i think now. Previously both limits were capped at 50ton.

 

[Super Falcon]

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.

Agreed our army people don't know I'm just amazed how he said type 56 better than Abram when Abram thrashed better tanks in Iraq than type 56