What's new

Numbers of New Tanks in army

Mr Zraver,
Can you share your further experience with M1A1 tank, as far as its Gas Turbine engines are considered. I have following queries.

I will do my best

1. How good and effecient that engine is in terms of acceleration, top speed(dash), total distance on cruise speed.

Very, probably the best in the world, the turbine is less efficient over all meaning it burns more fuel per hour so overall range is affected, but that rate of burn does not increase dramatically like it does when you go top speed in a conventional. An M1's range is its range at close to dash speed if the terrain doe snot make any serious demands.

2. How bad that engine is in terms of fuel consumption,

Horrible

engine oil consumption,

Bes tin the world, its turbine not an oil cooled V style motor.

ease of changing engine while in field.

With a fastpak kit and an M-88 for lift you can swap 9take the old one out and put the new one in) the engine and transmission unit if 45 minutes.

3. what is the MTBF (mean time between failures).

I don't have a clue, when I was in we kept a better than 90% up rate, but at least 1 tank was usually down for something, But this is not always or even usually the engine. I don't think any tank keeps a better up time overall. Tanks are complex and things break its just the way it is.

This 1500 HP engine is also calle as gas guzzler. How you compare it with piston engines like 6TD-2 type..................

6 of one and half dozen of another. The Turbine is power on demand, and very quiet which is important on the battlefield, it has great reliability but range sucks, its a fire hazard and a thermal giveaway. So take your pick.
 
Zraver do you have a any active duty experience in Iraq with M1s?... if yes, could you tell us anything about the losses that occurred to the tank and what brought those losses?? meaning how many were victim to enemy tank fire and otherwise what kind of problems were faced /?? i have heard that the air filters initially faced loads of problems owing to the fine sand of Saudi Arabia as opposed to comparatively larger sand grains of Nevada deserts, where the engines were actually tested and trialled? Any truth behind that .... ??
 
Zraver do you have a any active duty experience in Iraq with M1s?... if yes, could you tell us anything about the losses that occurred to the tank and what brought those losses?? meaning how many were victim to enemy tank fire and otherwise what kind of problems were faced /?? i have heard that the air filters initially faced loads of problems owing to the fine sand of Saudi Arabia as opposed to comparatively larger sand grains of Nevada deserts, where the engines were actually tested and trialled? Any truth behind that .... ??

No, in 90-91 depsite volunteering because my unit was tasked to I corp and Korea we never deployed, instead they took our water buffaloes and cots. I was out by 95 so again no for 2003.

What I know about losses is that in 91 the Abrams suffered a single confirmed loss to an enemy tank. It took a turret ring shot at aprox 25yrds. A couple more were mission killed via mines or missile hits but the biggest loss of M1's was due to a post war depot fire that gutted a brigade area.

The air fliter issue was over rated and I don't know why it keeps coming back up. Tank trail dust on most bases is a finally ground talcum powder like substance so US crews were well used to daily cleanings of the V pack filters. It only took a few minutes for the entire platoon. The filter itself worked fine in Arabia, particles did not get through because of thier smaller size.
 
Hi,

As much I have read into the issue---it all points out to a millitary disinformation propaganda for the sake and the ears and eyes of the enemy. Other than that there was no truth to it. Can you imagine the mightiest army of the world just suddenly became impotent by dust and sands of the arabian desert---only an idiot would have believed in that---only the idiot and his great generals and analysts who didnot want to see his demise believed in it.

They conveniently forgot the tank battles of the second world war in the desert sands of egypt---whence air filter technology was nascent.
 
The Discovery (or i think History Channel), actually showed that, airfilters of M1A1 tanks were clogged due to fine sand of Arabian desert.
 
The Discovery (or i think History Channel), actually showed that, airfilters of M1A1 tanks were clogged due to fine sand of Arabian desert.

No they weren't, they were subjected to daily blow outs with pressurized air from the tank itself. This is part of the normal daily maintenance routine like checking track tension etc. If the Filters were a problem how did VII Corps move so fast in 91, or how did the US Army reach Karbala so fast in 2003?
 
Hi,

So many times I see that people jump on any information that comes out which shows the us army to have problems or issues with equipment etc etc etc---such information should be accepted as not to be true---it should be taken as a disinformation propaganda---it should also raise your guard and awareness up---you should also be concerned and be afraid of what devastation the u s millitary is hiding behind the facade of simplistic problems that they are brining out which could accordingly, stop their millitary machine just with an air filter full of fine saudi dust.

The u s is notorious for showing the left and coming up with the right hook from nowhere and the arrogant victim does not even know when he got hit. Because once they get hit---they have lost their senses of time and space.

ARAZ---you asked me in one of your post if pakistan didnot make a good deal after 9/11. Even though this is the wrong place---but I am able to write the post now---I am in motion now---many a years ago on another defence forum I wrote about the problems and issues that pakistanis had in making a very poor deal with the u s and I believe GFaustralian concurred with me on my analysis.

Pakistan was in a different position during the Zia regime---there is no comparison between the two generals---Zia had a very easy job to get the u s involved as compared to Musharraf---at that time u s was a fourth party in that conflict and pakistan was a neighbour who just got involved due to its location---during and after 9/11---pakistan was a party to the terrorist act---because it was the conduit through which the terrorists moved to and from. Pakistan millitary also had very strong relations both with taliban and al qaeda's Bin Laden.

Ater ten years of sanctions, pakistan had suffered a lot. Musharraf being a pragmatic person knew very well that here was the oppurtunity for pakistan. The problem that pakistan faced was in negotiations with the u s of a---on one side they had superstar businessmen---some of them had more cash value in dollars than pakistan had in reserves in 1998---so where was the the equality in bargain---we were already talking from a position of weakness right from the word go.

The truth and the true value of the pakistanio deal makers came out at that time---and pakistan failed with drowning colours ( drowning opposite to flying colours )---you see the u s is a firm believer that you must negotiate everything right to the end even if you are on the death bed---don't take or give anything for granted---we assumed that they knew what our needs are and they will give it to us out of the goodness of their hearts---it was just a difference in understanding in mentality and perspective in how to make a deal---. Americans believe that if you don't ask, you won't get it---how bad you need it---depends on how bad you want it---if you want it bad enough then show it.

What pakistanis lacked was the american car salesman's mentality when dealing with the americans---they rather had the millitary generals and stiff collared foreign office personale making the deal---first of all these were the wrong people to make the deal---because they were mad at the u s for the sanctions---when we pakistanis are mad, our ego takes over and we hurt ourselves more---secondly, they were also afraid of the u s's retaliation---what was needed was a calm guy with a car salesman mentality----the generals and foreign office personale should have been there as well---instead of the 4 airforce bases, they would have offered 6 but in return 2 sqdrns of F 16's sitting on the pakistani tarmac within 60 days---what were the airplanes for---to make the pakistani's happy---other equipment to get the pakistani millitary upto date because of the american sanctions and if the americans didnot agree---then leak some of the information about the negotiations to the media. They should have been open and upfront---let the american public know that pakistan is ready to help---they should have gone to CNN, FOX, MSN and talked about helping the u s---but on the negotiating table should have been ruthless in their demands----some of the top dogs they captured should never have been released without an x number of F 16's---the planes were as usual to keep the anger of the public down and in control.

On the other hand---the u s also screwed up big time---they have given us a lot of help---but the problem is that none of it is as visible as the F 16 flying with the pakistani colors. The u s F-k-d up---does any pakistani here believe that if we had received 32 F 16's in the first year---the public would have opposed the u s and the pushtuns would have supported the al qaeda in the mountains---I believe not. The u s is equally to blame in this fiasco---I would rather say more so than pakistan---but then looking at their failures---"AIN'T WE A MATCH--RAGGEDY MAN".

There was also a misunderstanding between Musharraf and Armitage---what Armitage said should have been analysed keeping in view Armitage's background as a "LINEBACKER" in his college days and also what his colleagues said about him ( Armitage was known as a staright shooter---a good person---straight forward---no spins and frills attached )---but incidently---it was analysed by the pakistanis, keeping their pakistani mindset up front and not analysing the american being an american---so pakistanis being pakistanis, agreed to support the u s and this agreement was based on fear that the pakistani millitary had of the u s----you can't blame the millitary and Musharraf---at least give them credit of doing much much better than iraqi millitary---at least pakistani army acknowledged what the u s could do and what pakistani shortcomings were---it was a simple no win situation----rape was inevitable---so at least enjoy the trip---I think they did their best according to their abilities when our backs were against the wall and the knife's edge was against the throat. Could someone else had done better---we would never know---could we, had refused the u s---in a pipes dream---where Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif and Qazi Ahmed might be high on the afghani opium---could our being a nuclear state had made a difference---well Musharraf stated that in 2002 we didnot have an air delivery system for our big bomb---only in our dreams and rhetoric and not going by our millitary standars. So, overall was this a bad decision---not really---only the pakistanis turned it around and destroyed the advantage they had in a way only a pakistani could do it. From the jaws of victory into the minefield of defeat we have put ourselves into.
 
Hi,

On the other hand---the u s also screwed up big time---they have given us a lot of help---but the problem is that none of it is as visible as the F 16 flying with the pakistani colors. The u s F-k-d up---does any pakistani here believe that if we had received 32 F 16's in the first year---the public would have opposed the u s and the pushtuns would have supported the al qaeda in the mountains---I believe not. The u s is equally to blame in this fiasco---I would rather say more so than pakistan---but then looking at their failures---"AIN'T WE A MATCH--RAGGEDY MAN".

i think pakistan should have asked for just economic aid instead of F-16s. that is the problem of sending military personal for negotiations. they think in form of military hardware. if pakistan had received, say a few billion $$$ the moment the war started, then pak govt could have used the money to start building infrastrucutre in the North. this would keep the pashthuns happy and prevent them supporting taliban. that in itself would have been a big bonus. if pakistan had negotiated just for economic aid, they would have recieved a lot of it in 2001 when the US still had a lot of money to throw around, and money could have been used for infrastructure development.

once infrastructure development starts people would be able to see clearly that US is supporting pak grow. that would in turn make the people support the war on terror. instead pak asked for f-16s. now even if those f-16s arrived on time, and did not have all the restrictions that the us put on them, the general populace wont be satisfied because those f-16s wont be making their life any easier.
 
i think pakistan should have asked for just economic aid instead of F-16s. that is the problem of sending military personal for negotiations. they think in form of military hardware. if pakistan had received, say a few billion $$$ the moment the war started, then pak govt could have used the money to start building infrastrucutre in the North. this would keep the pashthuns happy and prevent them supporting taliban. that in itself would have been a big bonus. if pakistan had negotiated just for economic aid, they would have recieved a lot of it in 2001 when the US still had a lot of money to throw around, and money could have been used for infrastructure development.

once infrastructure development starts people would be able to see clearly that US is supporting pak grow. that would in turn make the people support the war on terror. instead pak asked for f-16s. now even if those f-16s arrived on time, and did not have all the restrictions that the us put on them, the general populace wont be satisfied because those f-16s wont be making their life any easier.

very true, 3 billion in oil credits, a couple billion in use as you will loans/grants paid directly to Pakistani's would be half the price and 50 times the value.
 
i understand, but you must also understand that pakistan needed it's current F-16's to go through MLU. we need to basically change our entire air force. we pakistanis firmly believe we will be sanctioned again soon, that's why we're using this precious time to our advantage :lol:
 
i think pakistan should have asked for just economic aid instead of F-16s. that is the problem of sending military personal for negotiations. they think in form of military hardware. if pakistan had received, say a few billion $$$ the moment the war started, then pak govt could have used the money to start building infrastrucutre in the North. this would keep the pashthuns happy and prevent them supporting taliban. that in itself would have been a big bonus. if pakistan had negotiated just for economic aid, they would have recieved a lot of it in 2001 when the US still had a lot of money to throw around, and money could have been used for infrastructure development.

once infrastructure development starts people would be able to see clearly that US is supporting pak grow. that would in turn make the people support the war on terror. instead pak asked for f-16s. now even if those f-16s arrived on time, and did not have all the restrictions that the us put on them, the general populace wont be satisfied because those f-16s wont be making their life any easier.

This is not thread for this argument, but I disagree with that assertion, on two levels -
1. That such aid would not have been used for bolstering the military, and
2. The effectiveness of "building infrastructure" in assuaging Pashtun opposition to the US invasion.

Even if the US had given Pakistan billions in economic aid/grants/loans, instead of military aid, the events subsequent to the Afghan Invasion, specifically Operation Parakaram, would have caused a large chunk of that money to be utilized to obtain some sort of parity with an aggressive and hostile neighbor. You need to keep in consideration the precedent set by the US, and largely supported by the world, in invading Afghanistan - that terrorism sponsored by another nation was just cause for a victim nation to take action to protect its interests. Operation Parakaram in that light was India attempting to go the same road and, given the historical animosity between the two nations, there was reason to be concerned at a mismatched military not being able to defend Pakistani borders in a campaign launched by India on some "cooked up terrorism" pretext.

Now the other flaw in your argument is that Pakistan simply received "F-16's as Aid" - A large part of the ten billion or so disbursed by the US to Pakistan (about 5.5 billion) was reimbursement for expenses undertaken in providing support for coalition efforts - there is no way that money could have simply been "turned into aid" -the support was required, and so was the reimbursement. The remainder of the ten billion was split up between economic assistance, budgetary support, and a smaller amount for military assistance.

Personally I disagree with incentives such as grants/loans etc. directly to governments, since a large amount gets wasted in bureaucratic red tape and corruption. Assistance (Loans/aid/grants) for specific programs in education, sanitation, infrastructure etc. (as Senator Biden suggested) is a far more efficient and productive route to go. Even better are moves such as the ROZ's currently pending approval in Congress, and PTA's and/or FTA's, that encourage the country's businesses to expand and create jobs and increase Government revenues. The latter I would argue is analogous to "teaching someone to catch fish, rather than giving them fish". On that count the US has not really shown much of an interest - the ROZ' bill has only recently been placed in front of Congress, after the seriousness of the situation in Afghanistan and FATA has become apparent, and FTA talks have gone nowhere.

On the issue of "infrastructure building" and "keeping the Pashtuns happy" - The first error in your reasoning is assuming that there is no infrastructure in the North - The NWFP has industrial estates, railway lines, highways etc. Recently the Islamabad-Peshawar Motorway was also completed, which links to the Islamabad-Lahore Motorway, and then various highways to Karachi. The lack of infrastructure is an issue primarily in FATA.

The second error is that the Pashtun, and specifically the Tribesmen, supported the Taliban because of the lack of "development" - At the onset the issue for the Pashtun was very much linked with their ethnic identity, religion and their "people" coming under attack from "foreigners" (NATO). Development would have done very little in assuaging the sentiments of the people at that point, and this is validated when you look at the opposition to the US invasion in "settled" and "developed" parts of the Pashtun belt.

Development is important, and will indeed play a key role in winning over the loyalties of the people, but I believe your argument of Pakistan using the US Aid it received (as I mentioned before, the portion of that aid that could have been utilized for "development" in FATA was much smaller than the "billions" figure bandied about") into building "infrastructure" in FATA, and being able to "preempt" the local support for the Taliban, is flawed.
 
SU 47,

I appreciate your comments---you are talking with a thinking mind---but the issue over here is emotional and reactionary---where does one get the biggest bang for the buck---F 16's and F 16's only. The u s failed to understand the emotional attachment of pakistan with the F 16's---the anger and the grudge that the pakistanis held in their heart has never gone away---even if u s had given us a thousand M1A2 tanks, they would have not made as much diference as the F 16's would have----it is just the power thing---.

My thinking is that the insurgency would have been nipped right in the bud----all the al qaeda would have been rounded up---Bin Laden and Al Z would have been history---NWFP would not have seen the day it is looking at today---pakistanis would have been towing the u s line harder than ever. Six years down the road and we still have a pathetic number of 2 planes delivered---it is a failure of noth the sides to understand the problem----pakistanis should have stuck to their guns a bit harder on the F 16 issue---they should have gone on the american tv channels and openly talked about this problem.

If aid works wonders---then why is the american help in kashmir not making a difference in the minds of pakistanis---why have the pakistanis forgotten about the american help---!!!
 
Its a pity when people undermine Pakistan's defence requirements in lieu of Economic / growth needs. Both have their own rightful place in our system. Giving up one at the cost of other is never going to get us anywhere. Pakistan has massive defence requirements and already we are conventionally falling quite short of the term we refer to as Min Conventional deterrence Economic growth has its own repercussions. The major issue being that they are bound to clash with someone else's economic interests and unless you have a formidable military to backup your claims, then the interests can go for a mile high six. Whatever military hardware procurement deals are struck , they are no based on whims or impulse. They are well thought out and planned. And so to say that military guys are involved. Well the cabinet division gives a full scale approval only then the military deals can go ahead. It is not like that the military gets the money and they go around spending it as per their desires.
You have to understand that no matter how much aid is pulled into the cty for development projects, there is a 500 percent room for improvement, therefore people so to say will not be satisfied for a long long long time to come. If you expect that Pakistan should stop procuring any kind of mil hardware and spend every penny on development project, then i assure you, incase there is war, all the development projects will no be able to help us out in anyway. No road will be able to fire a bullet, no comm tower will be able to shoot down en airplanes and no commute service will be able to stop the en's advance. Never underestimate the thinking ability of the hierarchy, both mil and political. I am sure, that defence of Pakistan is one facet, where not even the most corrupt of the politicians would ever compromise. Yes Pakistan needs to develop itself for the people as well. But what good would those developments be if there is no Pakistan to develop at all ....
point to ponder isnt it ....????
 
Iceman as someone with knowledge of Pakistani MBTs and Pakistani armour can you tell me more about the support vehicles in service like M47 based AVLBs
 
what about em dude .. sorry for replying late. . i was caught up in some work .... the AVLBs are mounted on M-47 / M-48 chesis....two different spans .. mostly with assault engrs bns ... with armloured divisions and independent armoured brigades ... hmm what else is there to tell
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom