M1 superiority is achieved by its overwhelming
M1 Abrams I. Introduction: A. In modern warfare the fire-power, mobility and versatility of the main battle tank is a key component of tactical fighting forces. The modern battle tank is the culmination of technical trade-offs between firepower, protection, and mobility .
These trade-offs are the result of technologies and advancements dating back to World War I when Britain first deployed an armored, heavy fire-power vehicle during trench warfare.The technological advantages of an effective modern tank give armies and other forces fighting advantages and the combative edge. B.
The M1 Abrams main battle tank is the exemplification of this combative edge. The M1 entered service in the US military in 1980 when it replaced the M60 Patton battle tank as the military’s main battle tank. The M1 heavy battle tank has a crew of four: a commander, loader, driver, and gunner.Since it was first introduced in 1980, the M1 has undergone various improvements resulting in the different variants: the M1A1 (introduced in 1985), M1A2 ( introduced in 1992) and the M1A3 (still under construction). The M1 is the main tank of the US army, United States Marine Corps, and is used in the military of Australia, Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. (Army-Technology.
com, 2009) The M1 Abrams is the most technologically superior heavy battle tank in the world. This superiority is achieved by its overwhelming fire-power, powerful engines, formidable armor and mobility. (Army. il,2009) C. Throughout my research, I have explored and become familiar with the main topics for my speech on the M1 Abrams main battle tank and will be able to educate you on its usage and hopefully try to persuade you tho think that the M1 battle tank is the most superior military weapon.
D. In this speech, I will persuade you, the audience, that the M1 tank is the biggest and most superior military weapon by discussing 3 main topics to hopefully persuade you to believe that the M1 tank is the best military machine. 1. The development of the M1 Abrams 2. The Combat record for the M1 Abrams .
The need for the M1 Abrams II. Body A. Development of the M1 Abrams 1. When entering service in 1980 the M1 Abrams was to supersede the M60 Patton as the main battle tank of the US military. The M60 had been the main battle tank of the US military since 1960, but due to the technological arms race of the cold war the US needed a more modern tank to combat advances in Soviet tank technology. For these reason the US granted General Dynamics Land Systems Division a contract to construct a main battle tank that could defeat the T-72, the main battle tank of the Soviet Union since 1971.General Dynamics developed the XM1 Abrams to meet the needs and requirements of the US military.
Upon successful completion of rigorous testing and trials the XM1 went into full production and service as the M1 Abrams. Since 1980 over 8,800 units have been produced at a cost between $2-4. 5 million. The tank was the first to be successfully outfitted with Chobham armor and also protected by Depleted Uranium plates. This armor was able to deflect and absorb the kinetic energy of Soviet anti-tank rounds.
The M1 was also armed with the British designed 105mm L7 Royal Ordinance rifled tank cannon that was able to hit targets from further distances than the Soviet T-72’s 125mm smooth bore cannon. The M1’s Honeywell AGT 1500 gas turbine engine was also able to achieve greater speeds at 42 mph than the T-72 whose top speed was 35 mph. (Gen. William, Capt. Howard, 2005) B. Combat Record for the M1 Abrams 1.
The M1 Abrams first saw combat in 1991 during the first Gulf War. The M1, as it was designed for, faced Soviet T-series Iraqi battle tanks.The US military paired with other NATO forces deployed nearly 1,900 M1 and M1A1 Abrams to the Gulf area. The M1 proved to be superior to the Soviet T-62 and T-72 tanks of the Iraqi army deployed during the conflict.
The Soviet designed tanks lacked the superior technologies of the M1 Abrams, such as it ballistic fire-control computer, and Chobham/depleted uranium armor. No M1 Abrams were lost to enemy fire during the Gulf war, and only 23 M1’s were taken out of active combat service due to enemy actions, with only one M1 crewman killed in action.Causalities on the Iraqi side were drastically lopsided compared to M1 losses. The M1 accounted for over 2,000 Iraqi armored units destroyed. This is nearly 2/3 of the total armored vehicles destroyed by NATO forces which was believed to be approximately 3,000 units destroyed. (Federation of American Scientists, 2000) Field reports from the Gulf war reported M1 Abrams successively hitting and killing enemy tanks at ranges of 2500 meters.
The Soviet designed tanks were not able to hit the M1 from these ranges, proving the superiority of the M1’s targeting system and M256 105mm smooth bore gun.Furthermore, the armor of the M1 proved effective when the tank was hit in friendly fire incidents. The tank was able to sustain direct hits from other M1 tanks, with only 2 anti-tank round completely penetrating the M1’s armor. (Kestell, 2005) In 2003 The M1 was once again called into action during a major conflict. The M1 was a major component of US fighting forces as the US invaded Iraq. The M1 was, again, facing Soviet designed tanks and armor.
The M1 was able to achieve similar success as it did 12 years earlier. No M1 was completely destroyed or lost due to enemy fire, however the M1 did face opposition.Nearly 80 Abrams were taken out of service due to enemy fire, resulting in 3 overall crewmen killed in action. The M1 faced much different opposition during this campaign from enemy insurgents armed with recoilless rifles/guns(lightweight weapon that fires a heavy projectile used for anti-tank purposes), and IED(Improvised Explosive Device). These new factors put the M1’s toughness to the test. The M1 was, in many instances, able withstand the explosion of the IED or anti-tank round and still operate at full combat capabilities. (Kestell, 2004) C.
Need for the M1 Abrams . The M1 Abrams has proved its combat dominance in both 1991 during the Gulf War and presently in Iraq and Afghanistan. The presence of a powerful, mobile, and lethal main battle tank such as the M1 Abrams has made the US military a superior fighting force in both urban and rural conflicts. The M1 is essentially the backbone of US infantry. The Abrams has the ability to quickly mobilize with infantry.
In this support role, the M1 can deliver high explosive rounds and heavy volumes of fire in order to suppress enemy positions for the advancements of infantry.The M1 has also proved its combat dominance over enemy armored units and tanks. During the gulf war and operation Iraqi freedom lopsided kill to causality ratios prove this dominance. Its dominance over armored counterparts have also been established by the M1’s total losses to enemy fire. No M1 Abrams main battle tank has every been completely lost to enemy actions. (Kestell, 2004) The M1 is only one of two main battle tanks that can boast this feat, with the other being the British Challenger main battle tank that has only seen combat during small scale actions during Operation Iraqi freedom.
Dunstan, 2007) The cost associated with fueling, supplying munitions, and maintaining the M1 has been seen as too expensive to operate. This cost has also been seen as exceptionally burdensome on military’s due to current economic situations. (Komarow, 2006) However, the needs for the powerful and advanced M1 Abrams has never been more prevalent due to the widespread of guerrilla terrorist fighting forces and the war on terror.
The M1 has played a “peace-keeping” role in the war on terrorism. The M1 has proved able to patrol the hostile and less then friendly streets of Iraq and Afghanistan.Terrorist factions lack the anti-tank technology needed to successfully kill the M1 Abrams, and in most cases lack the courage because of the immense fear factor the Abrams’ posses. The M1 has proven effective in recent conflicts and continues today to protect American soldiers, marines and the armies of foreign countries in hostile regions. III.
Conclusion A. The modern battle tank is a balance of fire-power, mobility, and protection. This balance often causes a tank to be lacking in certain areas, or to compromise one aspect in order to improve another..
The M1 is the exception to this, as every component of the 60-ton tank is top of the line or state of the art. The tank has few weakness or flaws in its design, and a is fully capable of overcoming these weaknesses by its exceeding strength in all other areas. The M1 is one of only two tanks in the world to be equipped and outfitted with Chobham armor,and the only tank to reinforce its Chobham armor with depleted uranium plates.
The only other tank in the world to be outfitted with Chobham armor is the British Challenger tank, that is not mass produced as the M1 is (only 362 Challenger tanks are currently ready for active military use). Dunstan, 2007) The M1 Abrams’ M256 smooth bore tank gun is among one of the largest tank guns in the world. The size of the M1’s gun is not what makes it incredibly lethal, it is instead, its state-of-the-art sophisticated ballistic fire-control computer. This computer gives the gunner the ability to hit targets from ranges of 2 miles.
No other tank has been equipped with computers capable of this type of target acquisition. No other tank has the immense amount of power that the M1’s Honeywell AGT 1500 engine is capable of producing. The M1’s speed is outmatched by no other heavy battle tank.The M60 Patton battle tank, the M1’s predecessor, entered service in 1960 as the US military’s main battle tank and was relieved of that role by 1980.
(Gen. William, Capt. Howard, 2005) The M1 Abrams entered active service duty as the US military’s main battle tank in 1980. As of today, nearly 30 years after the tank was introduced, the M1 is still the main battle tank of the US army, United States Marine Corps, and the armies of five other nations. No new heavy battle tanks are currently under construction, and in addition to this, no new contracts have been submitted to replace the M1 Abrams.The M1 Abrams is anticipated to be in service until 2040. This will make the active service of the vehicle to an unprecedented 60 years.
(Bianca, 2002) This is due the M1’s ability for constant updates and improvements in order to keep up with the current stresses of combat. These improvements and updates can be seen in the different variants of the M1, the M1, M1A2, and M1A3 that has yet to be put into service. The M1 Abrams has proven its dominance in testing, and most importantly it has proved itself in combat. The M1 was designed to combat the threats of Soviet armor which it successfully did when fighting in the Gulf War during 1991.The M1 was also able to adapt to the threats of unforeseen obstacles when it encountered terrorist IED and other remote explosives.
The M1’s armor, engines, and main gun has made the tank an incredibly reliable, effective, and advanced war machine. B. The combination of technologies the M1 Abrams main battle tank possesses makes it not only the most superior battle tank of today, but also for years to come.
References Army. mil. (2009) Abrams fact files. Retrieved from http://www. army. mil/factfiles/equipment/tracked/abrams. html Army-Techology.
com. (2009) M1A1/M1A2 Abrams main battle tank, USA. Retrieved from http://www. rmy-technology. com/projects/abrams/ Bianca, A.
(2002). Power Projection: The Current and Future Relevance of the M1Tank to the Marine Corps Capabilities. Marine Corps Command and Staff, Coll Quantico, VA Brigadier General William, P; Captain Howard, M. (2005). M1A1 Firepower Enhancements Program: Maintaining the Combat Edge of the M1A1. Marine Corps Combat Development Command Quantico, VA. Dunstan, S.
(2007). Challenger main battle tank. Osprey Publishing, 23(1), Retrieved from http://www. historyofwar. org/articles/weapons_challenger. html Federation of American Scientists.
(2000, April 14) M1 Abrams main battle tank.Retrieved from http://www. fas. org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.
html Holcomb F. ; Sohn C. ; Witner C. ; Baldwin P.
(May 2007) . Ramgen Power Systems for Military Engine Aplications. Engineering and Development Center Campaign, IL Kestell D. (2004). SRP Specific Meeting: Depleted Uranium. Journal of Radiological Protection, p215-217, vol. 22, issue 2 Komarow S.
(September 2006). Military Fuel Cost Spur Look at Gas Guzzlers. USA today, p. 47-49.
Osborn, C. (2008). US Army Tests New Gun. Defense News, 23(13), 16-16.
Pardo, F. (2008). M1/M2 Abrams.
Retrieved from http:// www. fprado. com/armorsite/abrams.