M1 trials in Pakistan

[TheNoob]

US brag about their seperate weapon comapartment of M1A1 tank well protects the crew in case of penetration than T-72. A video says a thousand words.

US gave them the dumbed down versions of M1.
if you dont know.
The protection is ALOT more lower than it is on the US versions.

^

A lot depends on the training too

 

[LeGenD]

Have you ever heard of M68 canon used on the older M1A1 ?? Which is being shown in the video .. In terrain that looks exactly like Cholistan desert ???

Their is a lot that you need to learn about the technical aspects of M1 series MBT.

Evolution of the M1 series MBT:-

- M1 Abrams model (first unit produced in 1978)
- IPM1 Abrams model (first unit produced in 1984)
- M1A1 Abrams model (first unit produced in 1985)
- M1A2 Abrams model (first unit produced in 1986)

The original M1 Abrams model was equipped with the M68 (105 mm) main gun. Here is an image:

Now, even that M68 (105 mm) main gun doesn't looks like this:

In 1985, an M1 (series) model was developed with improved hull design, enhanced FCS and equipped with the M256 (120 mm) main gun. This model have been officially designated as M1A1.

M1A1 Abrams model was [never] equipped with the M68 (105 mm) main gun.

Clear now?

Have you heard or read official accounts of PA testing M1A1 ?? Have you readers ... Why Gen Zia,US ambassadors,etc etc visited Bahawalpur before the crash?

I would like to see the evidence.

Have you read tank nuts like zaloga etc? Have you ever read books like Crossed Swords etc? Do you even know that all tank experts agree that the tank was tested by PA?

This is from the 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.

He did not specify the model. He pointed out why the deal was cancelled.

Are you reading my posts or just skimming through them?

Can't you see the damn M1A1 with its British L7 fail at hitting targets? Do you think it didn't exist! I'm sure a few hundreds of these are still sitting in US military depots !

See above.

Other than that a heavy tank is useless in our case..

A; sand -- bigger issue was---
B; Transportation infrastructure cant support it either..

A; The issue of sand ingestion was resolved long ago. This is why M1 series MBT performed really well in desert environments.

B; Yes, this is the first point [from you] which makes sense.

Besides, India have developed a heavy tank and is inducting it.

Gulf or Iraq war are the shittiest examples you can give to prove your point ...

Trained crew in Abrams with untrained shitty Iraqi troops (most surrendered in a giffy) in Asad e Babil aka Iraqi made monkey model T-72s & older T55s!

Untrained shitty Iraqi troops?

Iraqi armed forces were battle-hardened [on the basis of earlier conflicts]. The Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions, in particular, were perceived to be on par with the standards of a well-trained [WESTERN] military force in official assessments. The Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions also possessed latest equipment in the Iraqi arsenal.

40 days of non-stop aerial bombardment likely demoralized several Iraqi military divisions but all of the Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions held their ground and fought with courage in any battle. A battle with one of these Divisions during the Operation Desert Storm have received considerable publicity and it is known as The Battle of 73 Easting.

Armed forces of many nations study the aforementioned battle to understand the ground realities of a modern (Tank) battle and draw lessons from it.

Crock of shit.

I am interested in valid counterarguments.

dude how old are u?

This question fits on you actually since you believe that a [1960s era] Chinese MBT is better then a legendary and battle-proven (state-of-the-art) MBT.

You cannot fool a well-informed individual like me with such nonsense. Provide some technical counterarguments, if you can.

BTW the israelis also never brought Abrahams, why?

Is it necessary for every country to buy American goods? No.

Israel have its own Industrial capability.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

This question fits on you actually since you believe that a [1960s era] Chinese MBT is better then a legendary and battle-proven (state-of-the-art) MBT.

You cannot fool a well-informed individual like me with such nonsense. Provide some technical counterarguments, if you can.


Is it necessary for every country to buy American goods? No.

Israel have its own Industrial capability.

@DESERT FIGHTER Iss banday ki akkal ko 21 Toopon ka Salam dena chahea.

 

[LeGenD]

Yes, Your right.
The tank was too heavy for our taste plus the engine did not perform well in the cholistan desert.
It had overheating and malfunctions, or so they said.

Bro, all of this is hearsay.

Cholistan desert isn't a unique environment in the world where American engines cannot work. M1 series MBT have performed well in the desert environments of USA, Jordan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Its OK if the deal didn't work out. However, Pakistani accounts are lacking in credibility. We do not have to bash a product because we didn't get it or rejected it.

Rejection is not necessarily on the grounds of poor performance; it can be due to factors such as relationship with the provider, logistics requirements and doctrines.

@DESERT FIGHTER Iss banday ki akkal ko 21 Toopon ka Salam dena chahea.

Aap ko sirf trolling karni aati hai. Aap kei arguments sei aap ki zahanat ka khoob andaza ho raha hai.

You stay out of my thread because you cannot contribute in a discussion meaningfully.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Aap ko sirf trolling karni aati hai. Aap kei arguments sei aap ki zahanat ka khoob andaza ho raha hai.

You stay out of my thread because you cannot contribute in a discussion meaningfully.

Yes yes bro yr right! Cheers

LeGenD zindabad!!

 

[TheNoob]

Bro, all of this is hearsay.

Cholistan desert isn't a unique environment in the world where American engines cannot work. M1 series MBT have performed well in the desert environments of USA, Jordan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Its OK if the deal didn't work out. However, Pakistani accounts lack in credibility. We do not have to bash a product because we didn't get it or rejected it.

Rejection is not necessarily on the grounds of poor performance; it can be due to factors such as trust, logistics requirements and doctrines.

Heres some factors.
You know the situation at that time. How we were.

Then you have the americans...
And then, theres their way of business.

It was expensive, and it was going to be a real dumb'ed out version of the tank.

Who'd want that.
I can sell you shoes made of paper by advertising them as leathers. :p

It just seems like your just avoiding the performance and trying to find out what they talked about behind the doors which is practically, impossible.

As a matter of fact, M1's had issues in Iraq with its engine the most.

Hope you get the point.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Bro, all of this is hearsay.

Cholistan desert isn't a unique environment in the world where American engines cannot work. M1 series MBT have performed well in the desert environments of USA, Jordan, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Its OK if the deal didn't work out. However, Pakistani accounts are lacking in credibility. We do not have to bash a product because we didn't get it or rejected it.

Rejection is not necessarily on the grounds of poor performance; it can be due to factors such as relationship with the provider, logistics requirements and doctrines.


Aap ko sirf trolling karni aati hai. Aap kei arguments sei aap ki zahanat ka khoob andaza ho raha hai.

You stay out of my thread because you cannot contribute in a discussion meaningfully.

Furst you claim that Pakistan never tested M1.

Than you claimed that M1 never had a small caliber canon.

Ryan you post Zalogas statement about Pak testing the tank but not going ahead due to cost of sanctions n costs?

Than you claim that cholistan is a generic area -- could be in us or eu?



You are one confused man.. Who copied shyt from another forum without even reading the entire thing.

 

[LeGenD]

Furst you claim that Pakistan never tested M1.

I am (not) asserting that an M1 series MBT (never) underwent trials in Pakistan.

However, my point of contention is about the credibility of Pakistani accounts of these trials. Are they correct or not? Based on available evidence, they are dubious.

Than you claimed that M1 never had a small caliber canon.

M1A1 does not have a small caliber canon. Never had.

This thread is about M1A1 model, right?

Ryan you post Zalogas statement about Pak testing the tank but not going ahead due to cost of sanctions n costs?

Mr. Zolaga pointed out that the deal didn't work out due to political disagreements regarding nuclear program of Pakistan. I have mentioned the exact quote from his book.

Than you claim that cholistan is a generic area -- could be in us or eu?

Is Cholistan a [unique] desert environment in the world? What is so special about it?

You are one confused man.. Who copied shyt from another forum without even reading the entire thing.

I am not confused. My analysis is my own and I have posted lot of information to support my arguments.

It seems that you are confused.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

I did not assert that an M1 series MBT underwent trials in Pakistan. Zia-ul-Haq witnessed those trails.

However, my point of contention is about Pakistani accounts of these trials. Are they correct or not? Based on available evidence, they are dubious.

And why is that? Coz the footage according to you is fake?

M1A1 does not have a small caliber canon. Never had.

This thread is about M1A1 model, right?

So again which tank was tested in Pakistan?

Mr. Zolaga pointed out that the deal didn't work out due to political disagreements regarding nuclear program of Pakistan. I have mentioned the exact quote from his book

.

Nuclear program wasn't even an issue back than .. Had it been US wouldn't even have sent those tank for testing !

Is Cholistan a [unique] desert environment in the world? What is so special about it?

So where was the tank tested? Did Zia visit Nevada (which looks nothing like cholistan).

The topography of cholistan is different than anything in USA or eu!

I am not confused. My analysis is my own and I have posted lot of information.

It seems that you are confused.

Based on what evidence or research ? Mere. Declaring others wrong isn't called evidence or findings

Yes yes bro yr right! Cheers

LeGenD zindabad!!

Seems he's arguing for the sake of it.

Their is a lot that you need to learn about the technical aspects of M1 series MBT.

Evolution of the M1 series MBT:-

- M1 Abrams model (first unit produced in 1978)
- IPM1 Abrams model (first unit produced in 1984)
- M1A1 Abrams model (first unit produced in 1985)
- M1A2 Abrams model (first unit produced in 1986)

The original M1 Abrams model was equipped with the M68 (105 mm) main gun. Here is an image:

Now, even that M68 (105 mm) main gun doesn't looks like this:

In 1985, an M1 (series) model was developed with improved hull design, enhanced FCS and equipped with the M256 (120 mm) main gun. This model have been officially designated as M1A1.

M1A1 Abrams model was [never] equipped with the M68 (105 mm) main gun.

Clear now?


I would like to see the evidence.


This is from the 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.

He did not specify the model. He pointed out why the deal was cancelled.

Are you reading my posts or just skimming through them?


See above.


A; The issue of sand ingestion was resolved long ago. This is why M1 series MBT performed really well in desert environments.

B; Yes, this is the first point [from you] which makes sense.

Besides, India have developed a heavy tank and is inducting it.


Untrained shitty Iraqi troops?

Iraqi armed forces were battle-hardened [on the basis of earlier conflicts]. The Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions, in particular, were perceived to be on par with the standards of a well-trained [WESTERN] military force in official assessments. The Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions also possessed latest equipment in the Iraqi arsenal.

40 days of non-stop aerial bombardment likely demoralized several Iraqi military divisions but all of the Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions held their ground and fought with courage in any battle. A battle with one of these Divisions during the Operation Desert Storm have received considerable publicity and it is known as The Battle of 73 Easting.

Armed forces of many nations study the aforementioned battle to understand the ground realities of a modern (Tank) battle and draw lessons from it.




I am interested in valid counterarguments.


This question fits on you actually since you believe that a [1960s era] Chinese MBT is better then a legendary and battle-proven (state-of-the-art) MBT.

You cannot fool a well-informed individual like me with such nonsense. Provide some technical counterarguments, if you can.


Is it necessary for every country to buy American goods? No.

Israel have its own Industrial capability.

For some reason I'm not being able to post pics.. Il reply to you in detail tommorow.

Their is a lot that you need to learn about the technical aspects of M1 series MBT.

Evolution of the M1 series MBT:-

- M1 Abrams model (first unit produced in 1978)
- IPM1 Abrams model (first unit produced in 1984)
- M1A1 Abrams model (first unit produced in 1985)
- M1A2 Abrams model (first unit produced in 1986)

The original M1 Abrams model was equipped with the M68 (105 mm) main gun. Here is an image:

Now, even that M68 (105 mm) main gun doesn't looks like this:

In 1985, an M1 (series) model was developed with improved hull design, enhanced FCS and equipped with the M256 (120 mm) main gun. This model have been officially designated as M1A1.

M1A1 Abrams model was [never] equipped with the M68 (105 mm) main gun.

Clear now?


I would like to see the evidence.


This is from the 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.

He did not specify the model. He pointed out why the deal was cancelled.

Are you reading my posts or just skimming through them?


See above.


A; The issue of sand ingestion was resolved long ago. This is why M1 series MBT performed really well in desert environments.

B; Yes, this is the first point [from you] which makes sense.

Besides, India have developed a heavy tank and is inducting it.


Untrained shitty Iraqi troops?

Iraqi armed forces were battle-hardened [on the basis of earlier conflicts]. The Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions, in particular, were perceived to be on par with the standards of a well-trained [WESTERN] military force in official assessments. The Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions also possessed latest equipment in the Iraqi arsenal.

40 days of non-stop aerial bombardment likely demoralized several Iraqi military divisions but all of the Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions held their ground and fought with courage in any battle. A battle with one of these Divisions during the Operation Desert Storm have received considerable publicity and it is known as The Battle of 73 Easting.

Armed forces of many nations study the aforementioned battle to understand the ground realities of a modern (Tank) battle and draw lessons from it.




I am interested in valid counterarguments.


This question fits on you actually since you believe that a [1960s era] Chinese MBT is better then a legendary and battle-proven (state-of-the-art) MBT.

You cannot fool a well-informed individual like me with such nonsense. Provide some technical counterarguments, if you can.


Is it necessary for every country to buy American goods? No.

Israel have its own Industrial capability.

Iraqi republicans guard was the cream of Iraq armed with soviet exports & better trained than the Iraqi army troops armed with Assad e Babil n no motivation .. During desert storm Iraqi teoops were so effective that many even built n settled in prison camps before the Americans even came close surprising the Americans with their moral.

 

[LeGenD]

Heres some factors.
You know the situation at that time. How we were.

Then you have the americans...
And then, theres their way of business.

I see your point.

However, PAF inducted F-16 fighter jets from the US during 1980s. Therefore, we don't know if Pakistan army would have added American M1 series MBT to its inventory [or not] since Zia-ul-Haq perished in an accident after witnessing the trials. We are now left with (conflicting) accounts of why this deal did not progress.

It is possible that the unexpected demise of Zia-ul-Haq made the remainder of the Pakistani military leadership cautious and it decided to cancel the deal.

It was expensive, and it was going to be a real dumb'ed out version of the tank.

Who'd want that.
I can sell you shoes made of paper by advertising them as leathers. :p

We were getting discount.

Perhaps.

Yes, I have acknowledged the fact that the export models are not as good as American models. However, even the export models are very good.

It just seems like your just avoiding the performance and trying to find out what they talked about behind the doors which is practically, impossible.

As a matter of fact, M1's had issues in Iraq with its engine the most.

Hope you get the point.

I am critically evaluating the Pakistani accounts about the results of trials of an M1 series MBT in Pakistan. I have the right to do so.

If M1 series MBT were [to be] failures, this discussion would not have happened. We should strive for truth and not falsehood.

Every Tank runs into issues in a desert environment during a lengthy operation. Reason is that sand creeps in to sensitive parts of the Tank and it have to be cleaned after use. These matters are seldom disclosed to the public in some nations, however.

This information is from a declassified report about performance of M1A1 Abrams MBT during the Persian Gulf War:

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

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

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

 

[monitor]

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

Zia died after witnessing the trial. So when he cancel the tank.

 

[Muhammad Omar]

Zia died after witnessing the trial. So when he cancel the tank.

i said i think i wasn't sure about it

 

[LeGenD]

And why is that? Coz the footage according to you is fake?

According to me? Show me a single M1A1 Abrams MBT equipped with this type of gun:

Even M68 (105 mm) gun does not have this shape.

If you have [complete and authentic] footage of the trials of an M1A1 Abrams MBT in Pakistan at your disposal, kindly show it to me.

So again which tank was tested in Pakistan?

I don't know.

I did not witness its trails.
.

Nuclear program wasn't even an issue back than .. Had it been US wouldn't even have sent those tank for testing !

Really?

Go through this thread: Nuclear Chronology of Pakistan

Its a lengthy read. Take your time.

So where was the tank tested? Did Zia visit Nevada (which looks nothing like cholistan).

M1A1 Abrams Tank have been (thoroughly) tested in desert environments of different countries [so far] including US, Jordan, Iraq, Australia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and Afghanistan. It has performed well in diverse environments. Still not good enough?

The topography of cholistan is different than anything in USA or eu!

Doesn't makes much difference because M1A1 Abrams MBT have been thoroughly tested in diverse environments.

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

B/W, here is a photo of Langar county in Nevada desert:

Now, what is the primary issue of operating in a desert environment? SAND. It creeps in to sensitive parts of a Tank during operations and complicates its maintenance in a desert environment.

You think that US would overlook challenges of desert environments in the design of M1 series MBT? Makes no sense.

Here is a footage of an M1A1 Abrams MBT operating in the desert environment of Qatar:

Here is a footage of an M1A1 Abrams MBT operating in the desert environment of Jordan:

Here is a footage of an M1A1 Abrams MBT operating in the desert environment of Afghanistan:

Based on what evidence or research ? Mere. Declaring others wrong isn't called evidence or findings

What is your IQ level?

1. I have posted gun analysis? CHECK
2. I have mentioned different models of M1 series MBT? CHECK
3. I have explained the difference between the M1 Abrams and M1A1 Abrams models? CHECK
4. I have posted evidence of accuracy of M1A1 Abrams MBT? CHECK
4. I have posted (different) accounts of the trials of an M1 series MBT in Pakistan? CHECK
5. I have posted information about performance of M1A1 Abrams MBT during the Persian Gulf War (1991)? CHECK
6. I have posted information about performance of M1A1 Abrams MBT in different battles? CHECK
7. I have posted information about M1A1 Abrams MBT operating in desert environments of different countries? CHECK

It is not my fault if you are unable to understand technical information shared by me.

Seems he's arguing for the sake of it.

Am I?

I am being forced to repeat information again and again to get a single point through your thick skull. Even this is not working.

For some reason I'm not being able to post pics.. Il reply to you in detail tommorow.

I am experiencing internet problems as well. Something is wrong with infrastructure at present.

Iraqi republicans guard was the cream of Iraq armed with soviet exports & better trained than the Iraqi army troops armed with Assad e Babil n no motivation .. During desert storm Iraqi teoops were so effective that many even built n settled in prison camps before the Americans even came close surprising the Americans with their moral.

Overwhelming aerial bombardment demoralized many Iraqi troops. The (shock & awe) campaign lasted 40 days which is too much.

However, Iraqi Republican Guard Divisions stood their ground and fought with courage. In some areas, US and Iraqi troops got intermingled and fought pitched battles.

Those who think that the Persian Gulf War (1991) was largely a display of airpower, they are mistaken.

 

[thrilainmanila]

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

 

[krash]

@LeGenD

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

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.

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

Another of your points was,

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

coupled with,

The issue of sand ingestion was resolved long ago. This is why M1 series MBT performed really well in desert environments.

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

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

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

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

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

with this,