>Not being a war expert I have no idea what these numerous problems were. What were they?<
From memory the problems were those of strategic deployability, with the Abrams units requiring greater numbers of personnel and MT support, operating, withunits requiring significant climatic conditions modifications in-theatre, and some component and sub-system failure for same reasons. There were cases of 'cannibalism' with the Army stripping most of the M1s that were delivered to the USMC due to in-theatre shortage of spares. Performance in some terrains left much to be desired; M1s had been tested in sand terrain which I later found out to be a lot on a General Dynamics property, and not something that would have been expected or for that matter unexpected, in combat operations.
Its all 'water under the bridge now' since there were several projects to upgrade the M1A1s after the 1st Gulf War, including to complete the re-arming of the US-based tanks with the 120mm guns.


On 17 June 2015 at 16:11, Knapp <magick.crow@gmail.com> wrote:


The M1 was used during a very short 100-hour battle operations. There were numerous problems that were not made public due to the euphoria of Iraqi defeat. Would NATO tank units have sustained combat against offensively-minded Warsaw Pact forces for longer?

Greg

 
Not being a war expert I have no idea what these numerous problems were. What were they?

--
Douglas E Knapp

Massage in Gelsenkirchen-Buer:
http://douglas.bespin.org/tcm/ztab1.htm
Please link to me and trade links with me!
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto 
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=JydxSB9tZc6TS63HiAHJcg6SAwighNGJ