The Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT) is set to be developed by the U.S. Army to advance tank warfare. The new model, Abrams M1A2 SEPv3, offers enhanced protection, survivability, and higher performance. The AbramsX will function as a “key node in lethal battlefield networks” and bridge between the current-fielded Abrams SEPv3 and the recently-unveiled SEPv4. Named after General Creighton Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and a commander of armored forces, the M1 has managed to stay a tank in modern warfare.
There are three main operational Abrams versions: M1, M1A1, and M1A2, each with improvements in armament, protection, and electronics. The last layer of the Abrams interior is undoubtedly RHA. The M1A1 /M1A2 will hit the market with full interior, primarily due to the turbine engine. The interior remains intact, as evidenced by body cam footage of a Russian soldier walking around the tank and entering it.
In conclusion, the Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 is a modernized version of the MBT in service with the U.S. Army, offering enhanced protection, survivability, and higher performance. The AbramsX will continue to be a crucial component in modern warfare.
📹 How to Drive and Fire Tanks | How it Works Abrams M1A2M1A2C Tanks
This video is a Correction from our recent Video the Abrams Tanks. Credits of all the audience who supported us at the end of the …
📹 The Insane Engineering of the M1 Abrams
Credits: Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus Editor: Dylan Hennessy Animator: Mike Ridolfi Animator: Eli Prenten Sound: Graham …
When I was in the military (2000-2004). I remember these things being Insanely quiet when they needed to be. Like people had to put up glow lights in order to make sure the tanks didn’t run them over by accident while they were sleeping. I thought it was very stupid until I heard one only 30 feet from where I was getting ready to go to bed, and I could barely hear it. It was very eerie, like seeing an elephant tiptop or something.
For those not familiar with US designation convention, M is short for Model, and A is Alteration. SEP refers to a specific series of upgraded equipment. So the Model 1, Alteration 2 with a Systems Upgrad Package becomes M1A2 SEP. Abrams is the model name. Specifically, the tank is named for Creighton Abrams, a Vietnam era General. After all, we have a lot of pieces of equipment called M1, so it helps to specify the model’s name.
Actually one of the reasons why the Turbine engine was chosen over a diesel engine is because of noise. While the Turbine engine does produce a louder noise at closer distances, at longer distances the diesel engine is louder because the higher frequency noise of the turbine easily dissipates over distance while the lower frequency of the diesel persists. Autoloaders are not a Russian unique mechanism. Some NATO tanks, heck even American vehicles use them like the French LeClerc tank, American M1128 MGS, Japanese Type 10, etc… The US even considered an autoloader for their MBTs during the MBT-70 program. The Autoloader fitted in the MBT-70 was the German Rheinmetall autoloader. While it was fast, it was ultimately unreliable. The US then opted for their own homemade autoloader which was more reliable but sacrificed loading speed. In the end the autoloader system was too expensive, unreliable, and complex.
Retired 6 months ago from this beast. I fuckin miss it everyday. No matter how many times I see a article pop up about the M1, I always have to watch it. I love how the Armor community is so small I always see friends in these vids. I’ll also add that the US Army does not use the HEAT round anymore except to basically get rid of expiring training lots. The MPAT has been the round of choice over that, which will soon most likely be replaced by the new AMP round that many have seen around the internet.
I am impressed, I have watched several articles on the Abrams but I found your article to be excellent. As a former tank crewman in Vietnam on the M48A3 1967-1969 it was often challenging to explain to novices many of the aspects your article covers very well. I have shared this article with several friends for that purpose. Compliments to the chef. FYI re replacing torsion bars in a tank. In the field changing torsion bars can be a challenge and on more than a few occasions we used some C4 to remove the road wheel arm where it was stuck in the housing. I doubt we could have done this in a workshop environment. Thought I would share a little story from the jungle.
I once parked my car in a row of 8 or 10 M1 Abrams at Ft. Knox over at the motor pool because the tiny parking lot there was full and I had a printer to replace. When I was walking in I turned around to see my Ford Focus in a line of multi-million dollar, state of the art tanks and it brought a huge smile to my face. I’ll never forget it 😂😂
I absolutely love that you cover the engine! 🎉 I’m tired of hearing websites say it requires “jet fuel.” There are a lot of good reasons a turbine engine was chosen — Yes, it’s a gas guzzler…but, you can also fuel it with cooking oil in a pinch and logistics has been a US strong suit for nearly a century. 😉🇺🇲
I was chosen to work on the xm project,in its early developement,due to my MOS of 63Hotel20(Heavy wheeled/tracked repairman). The hydrogas chamber kept leaking,so we chose the torque rod system. I left the military,in 1981,after 9 years service. Seeing all the improvements,makes me proud to see the tank has become so advanced,and safer,for the crew !
The M1A2 Abrams comes in multiple versions, one for US only and another that is made available via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. The US only variant does not use Chobham composite opting instead for an extremely classified depleted uranium composite. This stuff is so classified that whenever there is a tank accident and the armor is exposed, they evacuate the area, throw a bunch of tarps onto everything and wait for a specialist team to show up. I was at Knox (home of armor corps) during the development of the M1A2 SEP upgrade package and got to be involved in some of the prototypes the Mounted Maneuver Battle Lab (MMBL) was doing. Yeah that DU armor is essentially indestructible and takes a ridiculous amount of punishment to render a tank inoperable. This is why our enemies target the tracks instead to render the tank immobile, though still operational.
I was in the Army 89’ to 92’, joined the Army after high school graduation in 88’ (best decision I ever made). I was M1A1/M1A2 tank engine mechanic and tank recovery specialist, did my basic training and tank mechanic school at Fort Knox Ky and was then stationed at Fort Stewart Ga. The article is awesome and pretty much spot on, those torsion bars are heavy as hell and takes at least 3 people if not four just to carry one. I remember during desert shield when the tanks were still being shipped over, we were at a forward area in a hanger near a pier (forgot the name of it) and they took a handful of the M1A2 tanks and started doing brake tests on the street (the street was as long as a landing strip). They would go down the street in the tank and speed up to 45mph back to where we were and the driver would then slam on the brake pedal and the entire back of the tank would come up 2 to 3ft off the ground (I kid you not), then the tank would slam back down to the ground and I was just shaking my head and thinking to myself are these fools trying to actually snap those those torsion bars on purpose ?? That’s at least 6 torsion bars you’d have to replace if they actually broke in half from the force and weight of the back half of the tank slamming back to the ground, I’ve seen numerous tanks that were towed back to the motor pool from the field on maneuvers because of broken torsion bars with the M88 recovery vehicle (I’ve even towed some in myself) and that was on dirt/mud ground etc….
Man this is just so incredibly good. I just graduated as a mechanical engineer and would always like more details but this strikes the line between well explained and in-depth so well. I was particularly fascinated by the use of a ceramic over a high toughness material like tungsten. It seems incredibly obvious if you’ve even taken a beginner’s course in materials but it seems so clever as a way to essentially “cut” the incoming material with one of the same materials we use in cutting tools and then disperse the chips or fragments across something extremely dense and tough. Awesome.
The main reason a turbine engine was chosen over a diesel was not just because it was quieter in the front, which allows you to sneak up on the enemy. It was the lessons that we learned in WWII and the logistics of getting diesel throughout Europe. So we chose an engine that can burn literally anything, including cologne, perfume and alcohol.
Keep in mind that the smoke launchers are White phosphorus and its not smoke, but water vapor, it is important to distinguish because the water vapor creates a cloud, that refracts and defeats thermal and laser guidance, as the water vapor spreads and refracts thermal and light energy. Also due to the incendiary nature of WP it can be used as a last ditch area of effect anti infantry weapon if the tank has been overrun.
The crazy thing with these machines are they aren’t just mothballed after a few years of use. They are sent to factories and completely overhauled and upgraded and sent back looking almost brand new. We definitely have an incredible infrastructure for our machines of war (aka the military industrial complex).
Another great article, thank you! My understanding is 1. That depleted uranium also helps to reduce the penetration of kinetic energy projectiles. 2. That an important mechanism of reactive armor is that HEAT projectiles where we hit perpendicular to the surface. As the outer plate of the ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) goes toward the projectile the jet is forced to cut and elongated hole in the plate effectively using up more of the jet. I can dig up references, if you need. Thanks again for your great work. I appreciate your articles!
I once saw an American convoy of 4 M1 and 8 HMMWV rumbling through a small German village, of course blocking all traffic. That was in 2002. It was dark and you could barely see these vehicles. It still amazes me that a 70 ton tank on rubber padded tracks can use a public road without making too much damage… 😲 Needless to say: With an Army base and an airstrip nearby you could see all sorts of military vehicles back then. C-130 and UH-60 regulary flew overhead and one evening I even could watch a night training of 4 Apache helicopters near my workplace… 🤟
This article is a great source of information about the engineering behind the M1 Abrams tank. It’s impressive how the tank has been constantly updated and is still considered a top-tier ass-kicker even though it is technically over 40 years old. The production value of the article is fantastic, and the engine heat signature animation and the 3D model of the interior are particularly noteworthy. I also found it interesting to learn about the asymmetrical torsion bars and the hydraulic suspension. The M1 Abrams has many impressive features, but the fuel consumption and complexity of the turbine engine are potential disadvantages. Overall, this is the best informational article on the M1 family that I’ve seen, and it’s fascinating to learn about the tank’s history and evolution.
Most of these weapons, like the Abrams, Apache helicopters, F15 Eagle, even the M2 Bradley, etc most of these vehicles came out in the late 70s and early 80s and it’s still just effective. They are so well made that they can be out there for 50+ years as long as they get updated with new electronics.
Great article! I used to be an auto mechanic, and I’m quite impressed with a lot of the engineering that you described in this tank. The turbine seems to be a significant engineering accomplishment. I hope that it’s reliable in the field and doesn’t require frequent servicing relative to diesel engines. While it seems to have some advantages like excellent torque, the fuel consumption and complexity strike me as disadvantages. The torsion bar suspension does seem potentially problematic. I’d guess that even smaller mines or other explosives directed at the wheels could possibly bend or otherwise damage the long torsion bars, and it does seem like maintenance would be a challenge. I do hope that NATO countries can move to something like hydro-gas suspension for better serviceability in the future. A quick web search suggests that the K2 black panther tank uses some form of hydro-gas suspension.
The survivability for the crew is a HUGE advantage. You spend years training these guys to be experts running that extremely sophisticated machine, and it’s much easier to give them a new tank than to replace experts in operating it. It also gives confidence to the crew in knowing that they have both design and experience to back them up in their effort to get out of battle alive. In WW2 the Japanese and German air forces were decimated when their pilots were killed and they couldn’t replace them with adequately-experienced replacements, turning the ordeal into a death spiral.
👏🔧🚀 It’s truly remarkable that the M1 Abrams tank, despite its age, has been continuously updated to maintain its top-tier performance. This speaks volumes about the ingenuity and dedication of the designers behind it. However, it’s worth considering the evolving nature of warfare and the emergence of new technologies. How does the M1 Abrams fare against more modern and advanced tank designs? Exploring these comparisons can shed light on the tank’s true capabilities and its place in the ever-changing landscape of military technology.
The M1 Abrams (/ˈeɪbrəmz/) is a third-generation American main battle tank designed by Chrysler Defense (now General Dynamics Land Systems) and named for General Creighton Abrams. Conceived for modern armored ground warfare and now one of the heaviest tanks in service at nearly 68 short tons (62 metric tons), it introduced several modern technologies to US armored forces, including a multifuel turbine engine, sophisticated Chobham composite armor, a computer fire control system, separate ammunition storage in a blowout compartment, and NBC protection for crew safety. Initial models of the M1 were armed with a 105 mm M68 gun, while later variants feature a license-produced Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44 designated M256. The M1 Abrams was developed from the failed MBT-70 project that intended to replace the obsolete M60 tank. There are three main operational Abrams versions, the M1, M1A1, and M1A2, with each new iteration seeing improvements in armament, protection, and electronics. The Abrams was to be replaced in U.S. Army service by the XM1202 Mounted Combat System, but since that project was canceled, the Army has opted to continue maintaining and operating the M1 series for the foreseeable future by upgrading with improved optics, armor, and firepower. The M1 Abrams entered service in 1980 and serves as the main battle tank of the United States Army and formerly of the United States Marine Corps (USMC). The export version is used by the armies of Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Poland and Iraq.
Just yesterday I spotted 12 new Abrams tanks on Rail way flat cars a couple blocks from my house in Dallas, Texas. They must have been on their way to Fort Hood,Texas. It was the first time seeing one up close and they were very impressive machines ! I would not want to be the one to run into one in a fight.
Once upon a time back in the mid 1980s I joined the Army as an Airborne Infantryman, a Paratrooper. After getting out later I joined the National Guard of another state and became a Tank Commander on the M1A1 Abrams. Being a former infantry NCO I learned how to operate and maintain it, I was sent to Boise Idaho for a 5 week course or National Guard AIT. First I was a gunner then became a TC Tank Commander. In the Guard I met many former active duty Tank Commanders and I listened and learned armor tactics over beer and bullshit sessions. I had acquired knowledge from being in mechanized infantry on how to work with tanks. I learned very quickly on how to work within my platoon, Troop, and Squadron. I loved the gunnery and tank qualification tables. It was great to qualify on gunnery because I had a very good and loyal crew, that what makes the Abrams a lethal weapon in combat.
I think there are a couple of things this article doesn’t really touch on that are key to the Abrams suitability for operation in Ukraine: it was designed to be super simple to operate (as far as tanks go), and super easy to maintain. It had to be easy to use so National Guard units could train on it in relatively short timespans, and quick refresher sessions would get units back up to speed on its operation. For maintenance, so much of the tank can just be removed and replaced so the tank gets back in service quickly while the damaged parts are repaired separately. Challenger and Leopard might be superior to Abrams in many respects, but there is no contest on these fronts.
People make a big deal out of how much fuel the Abrams uses. Like it uses twice as much fuel so they think that an armored division requires twice as much fuel. The thing is there are lots of other things in an armored division that needs fuel. APCs, recovery vehicles, supply trucks, HUMVEE’s, SPGs, etc. Rather than it increasing fuel usage by double, it might in reality only be 25% (i have no idea what the actual number is, but it’d be way less than double)
Unfortunately for t72 and t90 fanboys, the relatively poor trained conscript crews are a part of the design of these tanks. They do indeed hold the t72 and t90 back, but they are also an integral part of the tank. To have exceptionally well trained crews in such an attritable tank would not make sense to the brilliant and infallible soviet designers. The disadvantage is baked in. Sorry boys.
The use of the turbine in the tank is interesting because when the Sherman came around in World War II, it had multiple different engines including one that was a radial airplane engine. (And one that was five Chrysler straight 6s stuck together around a common crankshaft). This isn’t unique to the Abrams but the fact that they can take the entire engine out and replace it relatively quickly is extremely useful.
alright someone who’s an expert or knows and study armor very well I have to ask so not only hardness and toughness and density matters but also compressive strength and strength-to-weight ratio (what’s better to stop the bullet weight or strength?) what else affects to stop a round or whatever? why are Composite metal foam (CMF) armor is able to stop it so good yet not need to require to have the density of uranium or other heavy materials needed to stop a round?
The Abrams is indeed a good tank, but so is any modern MBT. The technology has converged enough that encounters between different tanks are decided by the quality of the crew more than the differences in the tanks themselves. No 4th generation MBT is orders of magnitude superior to any other as they would be compared to WW2 era tanks. The segments that explained different round types and their interactions with tank armour were very well done.
Hi from Kyiv, Ukraine! Can confirm we’re desperately waiting for stuff like the Abrams to reach us. The going is getting difficult, we need a game changer. And we really do need Russia ousted this year, not the next and certainly not the one after that. Too many of us have lost their lives in the first year of war alone.
The tech may be mind-blowing, but it is also literally blowing This technological marvel was destroyed by a 500$ drone made from PVC pipes and the cheapest chinese tech parts, with an RPG grenade taped to it with red duct tape It is not the fact that it was destroyed… any military tech can be destroyed eventually… It is about how it was destroyed
We had a Tank PLT attached to our Company during the Surge. I had never worked with a tank B4 and figured the Abrams would be pretty loud and slow. I was wrong. One of the Abrams “snuck up” on me from behind while on patrol. It was way quieter than I would have ever thought, I did have ear pro in and there was SAF but Ive noticed MRAPS and HUMVEEs from further away.
People think about these tanks in article game logic, the most important and valuable resource the tank has is its crew. A tank can be rebuilt but its crew is hard to replace. If the tank is out of commission but the crew survives thats a much better alternative. Get them another tank. The countless hours and money put into each crew person is incredibly hard to quantify.
They blow up just same as all the other “game changer tanks” any tank when hit with a modern anti tank missile or artillery shell. Ukraine is making the “big brains” rethink the use of tanks on a modern battlefield against an enemy that is at very least equal to them. It was all fun and games against a 3rd rate army like Iraq or barefoot Afghani’s, when 2 evenly matched opponents battle, it is just one large meat grinder.
1. Any tank hit by a missile is vulnerable 2. The Russian enemy destroyed one Abrams until the Ukrainians destroyed it during a period of approximately two years about 3.000 tanks T-72. It’s a huge difference. 3. Abrams today is without doubt the best tank in the world and is comparable with it, only Leopard.
Are there any publicly available details on the stabilization system used in the M1? I’ve tried searching and have found no results except for a stabilization system for the commander’s machine gun which I believe is outdated now with the CROWS. I noticed this article only very briefly mentions the stabilization but gives no details
This Abrams tank has only been used to chase poor ppl with Ak47s. Its never been tested against any serious opponent. In Ukraine it’s going to show all its weaknesses. E.g. it’s too heavy and will get stuck in the mud where it’ll be an easy target for Russian drones and artillery. In fact, the Abrams may not be able to arrive near the war zone
I doubt that the use of a 120mm gun in the British challenger influenced the US to switch to 120mm much since I believe the British gun on the challenger was rifled and thus incapable of sharing ammunition in either case. Now maybe they could still share some production facilities because I believe the challenger fires the same sabot round but with rings which negate the rifling but I suspect it was mostly about the leopards.
When I was little, I found about a gallon of diesel fuel and was eager to light things up. So, I spilled that on some items, in the backyard, and had to clean the backyard for the rest of the day… That smell remained for along time. And ofcourse, when I threw the match it was the same as throwing it into water. Later on I learned diesel fuel can be ignited ONLY under pressure. So, I took the bicycle pump (for tires) and… no, Im kidding.
18 years on this tank, 4 combat deployments on the Abrams and multiple variations and upgrades, I can say this is the best job I ever had. If anyone seen the movie war of the worlds with tom cruise, When the Tripod comes out and starts up….They are using the Abram’s engine startup before they start using the laser. How do I know? They came to Fort Stewart, GA and took a sound sample from the tanks in the motor pool when they started it. (They did it from a cold start meaning the tank starting up for the first time of the day). The most common fuel that is used on the Abrams is JP8….But can use Diesel or Gas. Now, The earlier models of the Soviet T80 Tanks had a turbine engine but they reverted back to using the diesel engine because it was cost efficient and cost effective.
I’m a 91A, H, & M, going on a decade of service. Torsion bars suck when they break, but it’s rare. And they are wrapped with a layer of tape that protects the crew and vehicle in the event that they shatter, but also hold them together and make it possible to remove them when they break. It may not be a perfect system, but simple is often better. I foresee a lot of issues with the oil-gas shock system they proposed.
in the USA, gas turbine engines were made for Abrams. And now they can’t (By the way, production has been restored in Russia). Well, or the whole nuclear energy industry has been fucked up in the USA. That is, the United States had an industry and could not develop it, moreover, it was ruined. There was an industry in Russia from the beginning, it was not lost, despite the 90s and they were able to develop and reach a new level.
Cette année, de nouveau, la saison de l’abrams est reportée. Que vont pouvoir faire cerfs et biches ? La saison approche, ça risque d’être gênant pour la reproduction. Au fait, en parlant reproduction, qu’est qu’un cochon dinde ? Le croisement entre dinde mâle et cochon femelle, ou l’inverse ? Si c’est cochon mâle et dinde femelle, pauvre dinde ! Et encore, je n’ose pas m’imaginer ce qu’il en est de l’éléphant dinde…
April, 2024. The A1 Abraham tanks suffer loses in the Ukraine. Are taken from front line service. German Leopard tanks fare no better. No tank can hide, no tank is faster than a drone, A missile or artillery. And all these are much cheaper then any tank. As reported by AP news. The days of tank effectiveness, is Over.
American military hardware, in my opinion, is over engineered which explains high price tags. However, in the long run it saves the taxpayer in that retrofits and upgrades are much less expensive than producing new designs which require retooling, battle testing and re-battle testing. The M-1 Abrams tank is a good example and the F-15 another. Decades old but still takes care of business and still looking good doing it. 😎
In fact the M1 Abrams is a lemon, it uses a turbine engine, which is a fuel guzzler and leaves a heat signature which can be detected by near earth sattelites by any antagonistic state …….I bet the guy who designed this lemon was thinking of only profits for his family and military industrial complex and not his country ! I as an Indian, country comes first ….fuck profit if I can defend my country and lose everything, I choose my nation .Bharat Mata ki jai !
the gas turbine of the abrahams wasn’t a good idea. it doesn’t make logistics easier because of the amount of fuel it requires. It is also much more expensive than a diesel engine. Quote from Richard Ogorkiewicz’s “tanks – 100 Years of Evolution”: “(Korean Indigenous Tank), which superficially resembled the US M1 but differed from the latter in some important aspects. In particular, it had a fire control system designed in the United States for the German Leopard 2 tank, which was the most advanced at the time but which Chrysler could not afford to incorporate in the M1 because so much of the money available for it was being spend on its AGT-1500 gas turbine.”(page 272)
The M1 will burn in the same way as the Leopards (and the Challengers when they are not too scared to enter the fight. The M1 speed will be useless in minefields whilst under artillery, drone and air attack. Going up against the Iraqi army is nothing like the integrated might of the Russian forces. Yet the M1 is be touted as a “game changer” and we know what happens to those. It will burn on the Ukrainian steppes.
The tank itself is impressive for its era….it can run off TONS of fuels but its got HORRENDOUS mpg…it uses 1.5 to 3 gallons a of fuel a mile…not miles per gall…its got amazing armor but its not THAT special…but the REAL fear anyone has when this tank shows up…..is the 40 other tanks and all the planes in the air and all the missile strikes and all the bombs from drones with satalight coverage….SURE u can fight an abrams but within 2 mins ur going to have a a 30mill $ drone drop death on you and you WILL die. SO its the american army thats backing it up that makes anything american look scary……the only REASON usa didnt STEAM roll threw the middle east and take everything in 6 months is because we needed a gov that controls the oil but that is able to be corrupted by the USA and sell all the oil with the USD and NOT something else which is REALLY hard to do when ur slaughtering everyone. ALSO war makes money so the more NEED for war the more funding u get…which is sad.
The Abrams sounds like the greatest tank ever built. But I’m worried that there is no tank that can survive the weapons I see on U tube articles, where Ukraine blows up tanks with ease. I wish somebody would explain why I don’t need to worry. Only someone much more gullible than me would believe the ridiculous, exaggerated claims made about many of our weapons. Airplanes tanks rifles etc. Call me a worry wart.
The amazing yet invisible Abrhams, the tank America is afraid to send to Ukraine because all the other Western tanks have done so well😂 The Leopard 2 aka the Potbelly stove, and the Challenger 2 aka the Barbecue have proven so good that neither the British or German governments wanted them sent to the front lines, as for the Invincible Invisible Abrahms, just send it to the front to give the Russians more target practice. SAD know it all experts who actually know nothing, Slava Russia.
40 years and never once was up against a modern army. This tank is well armed and armoured but is too heavy and eats more fuel than a tiger tank. A modern army wouldn’t have to take out the M1, they’d just have to take out it’s supply chain. The days of these antiquated beasts are over. Tanks of the future will be small, light weight with active defense systems, and likely either unmanned or 2-3 man crews.
The claimed weight advantage of the turbine is … false. It is nonsense to compare only the weight of the engine block. The turbine requires so much more complex air treatment that the difference in weight between the Challenger 2 and the M1 is only a few 100 kg, which is quite irrelevant. This small advantage is then finally used up by the fact that the M1 carries (has to carry) about 1 tonne more fuel for the same range. So, the alleged advantage of a lighter engine does not exist and therefore no additional scope for more armour. After all, the M1 is heavier than the Challenger. Here, therefore, the justifications are wrongly constructed. The claim that the uranium was applied as a spallliner … is something I’m hearing here for the first time and I think it’s nonsense.
British armoured vehicles such as Saracen Armoured Personal Carrier and the Saladin Armoured Light Tank used oil and Nitrogen controlled suspension arms and their suspension over rough ground was quite acceptable but the US used torsion bars as the suspension main design. The APC we purchased from the U S was excellent in Vietnam. When a carrier was blown up to remove the torsion bars would have been impossible to remove without cutting the main shell into pieces, remove the damaged or shattered bars and then to resell the frame of the carrier. You had to ensure that everything was aligned perfectly otherwise the new torsion bars would not align properly with the other side of the carriers frame. Avery difficult job the US would prefer to rite the carrier off and use was was. salvageable in repairing other damaged carriers. Generally US made armoured vehicles were easier to work on mechanically than the British.