M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982–92 (New Vanguard, 2)

This is a short but comprehensive History of the Abrams main Battle Tank which helped to redefine the modern Battlefield and the newest generation of Armor in it. Zaloga writes of its development and the pictures are excellent. This book can be equally at home in the library of the student of Military History and affairs as well as the serious military modeler and Wargamer.

Very complete history of Ambrams MBT. Very interesting facts about developments, political enviroment surounding, tecnical data , and armour foundamentals. Some information on production batches and tecnical developments never found somewhere else.Many plates on Desert Storm machines only,and listed units participant. Covers up to the M1A2. Recomended for every american and modern armour enthusiast.

Concise discussion of the vehicle. A handy overview (as Osprey books are) but worth the money. Recommended if bookshelf space is at a premium.

Informative.

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982-1992 was good, but I think Mr. Zaloga did a better job detailing the success of the M-1 in his, M1 Abrams Vs T-72 Ural. I believe battle tools and equipment are only as good as their performance dictates at the time of their use during the heat of battle. The proven success of the M-1 against the T-72 had to do with the M-1’s mobility, ammunition, and thermal-imagining fire control system. This is demonstrated in more detail in M1 Vs T-72 Ural in my opinion.Jim SmithRoscoe, IL

good book

Overall a good book but could have used tighter editing. I would give it a 4.5 if I could.It was published in January of 1993 so he was busy researching and writing in the years that followed the First Gulf War. The backdrop was a victorious US Army and the M1 played a vital role in that victory. It was a tank that everyone wanted to know more about.He covers most major topics about the tank but none in much detail which is understandable given the limited page count of the Osprey books. He discusses the story of the development of the M1 but for a more detailed treatment I would recommend you read Orr Kelly's book, "King of the Killing Zone". I have not yet read Hunnicutt's book about the M1 so I cannot say how Kelly and Hunnicutt compare.There are, however, some minor problems with this book.Pictures are flipped reversing right and left. The dog house, another name for the structure housing the gunner's primary sight, is always on the right side of the tank in front of the tank commander's 50 cal MG. The external APU was mounted on the right rear. Pictures appear to be flipped on pages - 1, 17, 19, 20, 38 top left.On page 8 Dr. Philip Lett Jun is metioned. With a last name of Jun is he Korean? Nope, apparently Osprey always translates US English into the Queen's English where Jun. is an abbreviation for Junior which would be more recognizable if they had left it as the American English abbreviation Jr. Armour and Programme are spellings that I am familiar with but why do this in the first place? Zaloga was born in the USA and went to school and received his degrees in the USA. The Queen's English does not come naturally to him. Why translate his manuscript into the Queen's English?On page 18 the number of Abrams tanks in a battalion and in an ACR are wrong. Someone has trouble with math. Yes, an armor battalion has a 2-tank section in the BN HHC and yes, each of the four platoons has 14 tanks but 14 x 4 = 56 and 56 + 2 = 58, not 55. The same problem is found in description of the ACR where an armored cavalry regiment is described as having three squadrons each with three troops containing 9 tanks and a 14 tank company. 9 x 3 = 27 + 14 = 41 tanks in a squadron and this agrees with the text. But 41 x 3 squadrons does not equal 116 but 123 so there are 123 Abrams in an armored cavalry regiment. Were there any Abrams tanks in the ACR HHT?On page 19 the list of M1A1 Abrams tank battalions that participated in the Desert Storm mention one battalion twice, 4-66 Armor: the first time is 4-66 Armor in 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Div and the second time as 4-66 Armor in 3rd Phantom Brigade, 3rd Inf serving as 3rd Brigade in 1st Armored Div. There are two mistakes here the first being two 4-66 Arm and the second having to to with 1st and 3rd Brigade 1st Arm Div. Other sources identify the 4-66 Arm, 3rd Brigade 3rd Inf Div serving as 1st Brigade in 1st Armored while the unit composed of 3-35 Arm, not 4-66 Arm, and 1-37 Arm is identified as 3rd Brigade 1st Armored Div instead of 1st Brigade as given in Zaloga (see Wikipedia, Order of Battle of the Gulf War Ground Campaign and the references at the bottom). I know, it confuses me too. It is easier to understand if written out like this.according to Zaloga1st Armored Div1st BDE 1-37 AR 4-66 AR3rd BDE from 3rd INF 4-66 ARWikipedia and other sources1st Armored Div1st BDE (3rd BDE, 3 ID serving as) 4-66 AR3rd BDE 1-37 AR 3-35 AROn page 42 in the NATO tri-color camo description the FedStd numbers for brown and green are switched. FS 34074 is green while FS 30051 is brown.I enjoyed the brief section on the Spinning "Vee" vehicle tactical markings and wish that it could have been longer. I also do not think that the Marines were inspired by the German WW2 Afrika Korps to create their palm tree design since the Marine tankers received their M1A1 training at Twentynine Palms, CA (plate descriptions on p. 47). I have not found anything that explains the choice one way or the other.Despite the errors and given the small number of books about the M1, this is one that is definitely worth getting.

I bought this hoping to serve as a modeling reference guide. I found it a little bit helpful. The book needs more reference picture of the real tank.

Excellent