People say that the first tier powers export "monkey model" tanks to lower tier powers especially those of allies/nations they don't particularly trust. Now we know that the case with Russian tanks and aircraft isn't particularly true. The Iraqi T-72M1 tanks used in the Gulf War are analogues to T-72A's just without the NBC equipment. Their biggest problems was that these were vehicles that were designed to be protected by M111 Hetz, facing M1A1 Abrams tanks firing ammunition that their armour offered no protection against. In fact the only thing you can say is Monkey model about the Iraqi T-72s was their ammunition, only having bought 3BM9 and 12, maybe 15, the first one being a steel APFSDS round, and the latter two are gloryified APDS tungsten carbide slugs with a steel tail to make it fin stabilized when fired out of a smoothbore gun. The core itself is not too different then those used in Soviet APFSDS rounds such as 3BM11.
If you look at the Abrams, every tank has it's combat weight rounded up to the nearest ton listed on the glacis plate (see pic). The Iraqi M1A1M in this pic corresponds to the same weight as the M1A1SA used by the USMC (67.6t). This suggest that the armour packages used by both tanks are similar in weight, probably with DU alloy swapped with Tungsten alloy (both about 18.5g/cm^3). The overall difference in protection would be probably be within 10% of each other.
This suggest that the US Army and Marine Abrams are vulnerable to the same threats that were seen penetrate the the export Abrams in Iraq and Yemen. Metis M (900mm) can penetrate the side turret and Konkurs (1100-1300mm) can penetrate the front at the similar angles used in the Swedish tests.
>If you look at the Abrams, every tank has it's combat weight rounded up to the nearest ton listed on the glacis plate I've never heard this before, please provide a source. >The Iraqi M1A1M in this pic corresponds to the same weight as the M1A1SA used by the USMC (67.6t). The most Sep v2 weighs around 70 short tons, so a considerable upgrade.
Christopher Murphy
while not monkey models, as they largely dont exist for US products, the exported abrams are usually A1 variants. the US army almost entirely uses A2 variants, which dont have some of the problems as the A1.
not disagreeing with your post, i just thought that should be put out there in case *certain people* jump to conclusions from your post. also arabs are notoriously bad tankers, as seen by pretty much all sides and equipment.
Brayden Lopez
Doubtful. It only makes sense to keep weights the same. It would be embarassing if sensationalist media report that foreign models have better mobility from the lower weight no matter the reason, and a higher weight would overstrain the tank. A common sense approach to "monkey models" would be to use RHA made up to the same weight as whatever it's replacing, and the fact that NERA makes up a large part of the armor package makes it very easy to do so. Meanwhile exporting identical models would be nothing more than a massive intelligence coup for every hostile (and non-hostile) country.
Ryan Rivera
The Swedish presentation on the Swede tank competition by Lindstrom which was leaked a few years back describes the following protection figures for the M1A2 Abrams. He also says on his website that the M1A2 Abrams offered by GDLS to the Swedes had armour in the export version. The Abrams tested in Sweden is listed on his website as having a combat weight 62.5 tonnes. This is the basically same as the US Army M1A2 of the same time period (137,400 lbs = 62.3 tonnes). This to me suggests that DU was swapped with WHA, which goes with the Abrams' most of the KEW series export Ammunition being WHA versions of of the M829 series.
The Swedes constructed their own test rigs with their own armor designs co-developed by IBD and AKB. Pictures in the presentation show that the hull armour had Leopard 2A5 style wedge and the Turret armour was unchanged externally. The protection was improved to the Swede's desired level (700mm vs KE for the Turret at 20 degrees and and 1000mm vs CE in the hull angled at 20 degrees). Sadly we don't know the proposed weight of the new armour. As US representatives were at the testing it is possible the Swedish developments saw implementation in the M1A2 SEP in the late 90s. M1A2 SEP incorporated titanium in the turret armour and blast doors saving ~600kg of weight, but the vehicle as a whole gained ~600kg (62,500->63,100) suggesting a change in the armour for the turret.
Exported M1s have their armor panels marked with an "E" to differentiate them from domestic-use tanks. The details are classified but it's not the same stuff.
A more likely explanation is that the export tanks have about the same weight of armor, but of a different composition.
The M1A1SA is supposed to have the same protection level as the M1A2 SEP ('third generation"). I think the additional weight on the is SEPv2 is mostly RWS + air conditioner + extra batteries along with additional cabling.
Lincoln Barnes
Saudi M1A2S (which is analogue to M1A2SEP) weighs 70 tons (rounded up to the nearest US ton) M1A2 SEP weighs 69.5 tons
>The M1A1SA is supposed to have the same protection level as the M1A2 SEP Iraq didn't receive the M1A1SA, they received the M1A1M, which are refurbished to a similar standard as the AIM, which weighs 63 tons.
Wyatt Wilson
but that doesnt account for the iraqi and others losses, so the point still partially stands.
Jack Richardson
Picture I posted gives in the OP gives the combat weight of the M1A1M as 68 tons. Pic above your posts has 70 tons stenciled on the glacis plate of the M1A2S. Pic related is Iraqi M1A1M, where even at the angle and wear, you can read 68.
Again, I have never heard this before and would like a source. The only A1s that weigh more than 65 tons are the AIMV2s that went to Australia.
Justin Morales
the M1A2 is certainly a good tank, but an M1A3 is needed soon to stay with and ahead of the curve.
Austin Scott
Good analysis, surprised to see this on Jow Forums. To be fair, even if Iraqis were far better tankers, outcome would still be similar (in 1991). They had inferior ammo, they fought under conditions of Coalition air supremacy, and they lacked thermal sights. In a desert. Conditions were incredibly stacked against them. Soviet tech they had was indeed inferior.
Problem is when people use this to gauge the Soviet capabilities in hypothetical Cold War gone hot scenario, and not just in late 80's, but across the entire Cold War. And that's just rubbish.
Jose Collins
Monkey model is just a term coined by what are now called vatniks to excuse the incredibly poor performance of T-72 tanks in Desert Storm.
Juan Nelson
the iraqis were right fucked in '91 even if they were some of the best trained tankers in the world, that much is true. but im talking about the modern Iraqi security forces and the saudis that use modern abrams variants.
Michael Roberts
>>If you look at the Abrams, every tank has it's combat weight rounded up to the nearest ton listed on the glacis plate Former 19K here I had never heard of this before.
Jack Hill
>not coined by the existance of nogs >Monkeymodel , kek
Juan Jones
M1A2S are old Saudi export M1A2 with upgraded electronics.
Nathaniel Cook
Because he is lying.
John White
Also, proponents of this idea (Soviets would fare like Iraqis) ignore that while Soviet army didn't all have their shiny new equipment, GSFG absolutely did. I understand, I'm just connecting this to the common discussion we have here. Ultimately, unless we're talking about extreme cases, it boils down to the men who use equipment. Israelis wrecked newest Soviet tanks with upgraded Shermans.
James Bailey
The combat weight of a SEPv2 is 73 (short) tons, not 68 or 70.
Henry Watson
>I understand, I'm just connecting this to the common discussion we have here. ah. yeah, you are correct. although it still is important to have new-age tanks to go along with good training. and i will concede that we do need to move past A2 variant soon, and it seems the army agrees as this is likely the last SEP upgrade until the A3.
James Evans
The M1A2D is the last currently planned upgrade for the Abrams.
Brody Campbell
making it 75.3 tonnes right?
Also new shit all round, if Brexit happens. >Will Hans ever update his masked tiger 3 (see leopard 2 a4, mask = spaced armour)
Nathaniel Sanders
The 2A4 has a different turret from later models even without counting the 'wedge' armor.
Wyatt Jenkins
M1A1 (original) weighed 63 tons, has (63) stenciled on the front glacis
That seems to be the weight with Trophy added + 3 tons. It is doubtful that the M1A2 SEPv2 weighs 73 tons stock when the M1A2C weighs that, and we saw the ballasts used for the M1A2SepV3/C mobility trials demonstrator
US tons, not imperial tons. 73 US tons = 66 tonnes
Red effect seem to think the upper front plate is a weakness, but I tend to think that even APFSDS rounds bounce or don’t penetrate at excess of 70-80 degrees, no?
Kevin Wood
I think they added some weight to balance the turret, ballast, to counteract the weight of the trophy.
Christopher Evans
That's why APS + Ballast is always listed together. Trophy APS alone leads to the Abrams turret being unbalanced
Isaac Ramirez
>That seems to be the weight with Trophy added + 3 tons.
That bridge crossing chart you posted says otherwise.
Andrew Torres
Here is a picture of the M1A2C- it has "70" stenciled on the front hull, yet it weighs more than that. Your theory is incorrect.
i bet that assembled weight minus ammo, most fuel, and other forms of storage weighing the thing down, also the american crew has to be added
Lincoln Fisher
Actually that is an old M1A2 that GDLS owns that they dolled up to show off at AUSA.
Luis Flores
A SEPv2 doesn't weigh 78.92 tons.
Michael Price
What is the black thing on the fender next to the driver?
Aaron Peterson
I know it doesn't weigh that when it is stock without any sort of additional equipment or protection. Chart I posted are SEPv3 (now C) weights
Robert Cook
For further info FP stands for "Force Protection", i.e TUSK II which includes the ERA, extra belly protection, CROWS, gun shields + whatever else.
Joshua Rogers
>Crew doesn't matter >Will of Allah doesn't guide the shell >that they will listen to the science to win a war . youtube.com/watch?v=X3Ef-IZvQ7g
Jonathan Hernandez
It wouldn't weigh that with the full FP kit either.
Parker Sanders
>This suggest that the US Army and Marine Abrams are vulnerable to the same threats that were seen penetrate the the export Abrams in Iraq and Yemen. Metis M (900mm) can penetrate the side turret and Konkurs (1100-1300mm) can penetrate the front at the similar angles used in the Swedish tests.
The only thing it suggests is that Iraqi M1A1 are 67-68 tons.
Austin Lewis
My main point is that I don't think the export Abrams have significantly different protection levels to US Army/MC Abrams. It seems that in tanks especially, people believe the myth of the "Monkey model" vehicles exported with significantly worse performance characteristics. This is definitely not the case with aircraft ( which are far more hi-tech then tanks). Saudi Strike Eagle is just as good USAF counterpart. F-35 is being sold to dubious US allies (e.g. Turkey and Israel) with the same capabilities.
I don't know what point you are trying to make.
Adam White
It doesn't even suggest that, because the variant that the M1A1M is based on does not weigh 68 tons.
Christopher Cruz
Funny thing is, the M1A1M is based off the USMC used M1A1SA. GDLS specifically mention used in Iraq's tanks such as 2nd Generation FLIR and rear vision camera for the driver, tank-infantry telephone and AGT-1500 TIGER. The only things not mentioned are Blue Force Tracker.
Elijah Lewis
No, it is simply vatniks trying to apply a term they used to excuse the performance of Iraqi T-72, which were comperable to 'rank and file' Warsaw Pact T-72, with export Western tanks that actually are less capable than current 'rank and file' Western tanks.
Ian Walker
I'm waiting for you to go all in and say that Iraqi Abrams are used USMC M1A1.
Oliver Taylor
The M1A1Ms for Iraq weigh 63 tons. This means they do not have any heavy armor equipped, as opposed to the M1A1 AIM V2 (SA) tanks which went to Australia and have an armor package containing tungsten instead of DU.
Luis Foster
Can I have a source for this? I've posted what I believe are the weight disc regarding the nominal load of the vehicle.
Mason Rogers
The problem is most Iraqi Abrams tabks look abandoned or scuttled while Russian T72s look like they suffered internal cookoffs. Look at the photo in your OP. It looks like it was driven into a ditch then scuttled. Also don’t Iraqi T72s not have DU armor?
Nicholas White
Iraq also had shot out barrels
Alexander Ward
that might be because the Abrams holds up better. the abrams has top notch crew survivability the Turrettosser-72 not so much.
Angel Torres
The USMC doesn't even use M1A1 SA.
Mason Rogers
Oh hey it is an M1 (not M1IP/M1A1/M1A2) with a 63 stencil.
How many Iraq tanks were assembled out of spare parts or made with pig steel?
Adam Nelson
How many iraq tanks where fixed?
Michael James
T-72s weren't deployed in Germany. GSFG had T-64s and T-80s (in 80s). So while Soviets did have mostly older models, those which would be facing NATO were the newest. ERA was also widely used, turning them into B(V) versions.
Tyler Perez
In any case it wasn't ammo, armor...what gave NATO tanks the edge were thermal sights. And while significant advantage it would be a bit less effective in Germany.
Jason Gutierrez
I'll correct myself, M1A1SA is used by National Guard. Marines use the M1A1FEP, but both variants are pretty much the same in terms of protection (using 3rd Generation HAP) and weight the same
Ryder Baker
>The Iraqi M1A1M in this pic corresponds to the same weight as the M1A1SA used by the USMC
[Citation Needed]
Ethan Stewart
Mutt tanks are shit, more news at 11.
If you want a good tank for cheap buy a T-90
David Turner
>~5 out of 140 get penetrated from ATGMs while equipped with EAP >Bad If you enjoy playing hide and seek with the turret to save a few bucks, buy Russian.
