GTP Alternative Cool Wall: 1980-present M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank

1980-present M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank


  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
5,551
Antarctica
Controls set for heart of sun
GTP_RogerTheHors
Nominated by @The Bman
1980 - Present M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank

m1a1-tankinmo.jpg


Designed by:
Chrysler Defense
Operators: United States, Australia, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
Cost per unit: $8.58 Million
Units manufactured: 9,000+
Weight: 60 short tons (54 long tons; 54 t)
Length: 32.04 ft. (9.77 m)
Width: 12 ft. (3.66 m)
Height: 8 ft. (2.44 m)

Armor: Burlington composite armor
Main Armament: 105 mm L/52 M68 rifled gun (55 rounds)
Engine: Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine
Horsepower/weight: From 26.9 hp/t (20.05 kW/t) to 23.8 hp/t (17.74 kW/t)
Top speed: 45 MPH (72 km/h) on road, 30 MPH (48 km/h) off-road.​
 
Massive. Fast. Powerful. Nearly indestructible armor.

Sub-zero.
 
As a strong proponent of gas turbine technology, any land vehicle with a gas turbine is granted sub zero status for me. Let alone the Rheinmetall derived M256 smooth bore cannon, sophisticated targeting systems, and absurdly tough armor.
 
Sub-Zero. One of the world's best MBTs, nothing else needed to say. Would be nice to see one competing with a T-90 at tank biathlon. :cool:

Also, the OP contains outdated armanent - the modern versions (M1A1 and later) are armed with a 120mm Rheinmetall smooth bore cannon.
 
@Blood Eagle. In that case, your reasoning was perfectly valid. (When it comes to matters as subjective as aesthetics, just about any reasoning is enough to validate an opinion, mind.)
 
No matter what it does, no matter what kind of tank, no matter how controversial a war it plays a massive part in, any tank will get sub-zero. Ask any random stranger if they think a tank is cool, even if they say no, they mean yes.
 
Back