In 79 I went to Aberdeen for a NBC school. Each day we march past a motor pool. One day the door was open and sitting in the bay was the XM1. 6 weeks later I was selected to receive a 30 min block of instructions on the drivers compartment. I was allowed to drive it around a track then on the tank path. Being a 19E helped greatly but I was one of the first privates to drive her. That’s an honor I cherish. Later in 84 we received our brand new M1A1 and it was like Star Wars. I was a young tank commander and fell in love with it.
You one lucky man! I can only dream of seeing XM 1. I already saw M1A1 at collings foundation museum in Massachusetts. I love how turret can be rotated juts by one hand pushing on the end of the gun! Love it.
You probably remember something wrong here mate, the A1 was introduced in 1985. 6 years after the M1 was adopted. You either learned driving on the M1 or you learned driving on the XM1 and then got the M1.
I remember that time. When I was in the Infantry, I remember reading an article that quoted an Iraqi battalion commander. He said, "When I went into Kuwait, I had thirty-two tanks. After twenty-eight days, I still had thirty. After half an hour fighting the M-1, I had none."
God, just imagine being on the receiving end of such a hopeless fight, it'd just be so absolutely demoralising that it's not surprising they surrendered in droves.
I remember a story that the American tank crews were mystified by the fact that when they hit an Iraqi tank, they would see two flashes in quick succession. When the finally got to view the damage up close, they found that the first flash was when the projectile hit. The second flash was when the projectile came out the other side. They were not only penetrating the Iraqi armor, but they were also shooting all the way through.
@@seventhson27 Yes. That is the quick horror of the APDS round (I believe that is the type), called a silver bullet. They penetrate so quickly that it is basically a hull breech in a spaceship plus an explosion.
@@J_Stronsky Yep, and they remembered this half a generation later when we returned. The army melted away and then returned as guerrillas, to no one's surprise. Well, no one Should have been.
@@seventhson27 Not only the Abrams outranged the Iraqi T-62 by a huge distance, they also have aerial reconnaissance, night vision, competent crews and excellent logistic backing them up. The entire Gulf War is an almost perfect war for a nation to have in their win/loss history book.
I was working as a contractor for a large manufacture and got to know the security director pretty well. I always noticed a picture on his wall of an M1 firing in the dark and you saw the silhouette of the tank with a muzzle flash. I finally asked him about it. That shot was the very first one of the first Gulf War. I was like, what? I knew he was former Army but that was about it. He explained that he was tank commander of that first group of tanks to fire in Iraq. He told me he was rather old to go at the time, being a tank instructor, but he twisted many arms and made a bunch of noise and they finally let him go. They came upon the Iraqs who had no clue they were even there. He popped his hatch and snapped the picture as the first shot went out. I was dumbfounded that this nice old man was commanding those tanks, at that time in history. Last I heard, he retired, retired to take care of his wife who was suffering from Alzheimer's.
I was an M1 Abrams tank crewman from 1989 to 1993.I was deployed to the Gulf in 1991, but the ground war ended before we could be sent to the front. Crewing that big beast was one of the greatest experiences of my life. I don't miss the Army, but i sure miss being a tanker.
One of my bosses in a recent career was a tank commander during the gulf war and he said nearly all the guys that were tasked with reloading the barrel of the M1 Abrams’s during operation, got hand cancer and lost fingers and stuff later one, due to the depleted uranium. Is that your experience as well?
@@jellymop I think he's yanking your chain. I'm perfectly healthy thirty-three years on. Doesn't mean I won't die of cancer, but I haven't so far. Still have all my fingers, too.
@@jellymop We received a full combat load of tank gun ammunition, but ended up not serving in combat, so my exposure to the rounds was minimal. Training rounds, however, of which I loaded hundreds, do not contain depleted uranium.
Worked at General Dynamics for two years. They are actually working on SEP V4. SEP V3 is already in production. They are slowsly rolling SEP V2s into Lima for retrofit. Despite it's age, this tank is still very modern. The upgrades that have gone into V2, V3, and soon V4 are, without saying to much, VERY impressive.
I worked on the SEPV4 while I was at Lima out in T&A. I painted brackets after welders added them and installed a few wiring harnesses before the project was temporarily shelfed.
Unless you replace that turbine with a diesel you won't win against China, and Russia will absolutely humiliate you. Peer to peer is a different beast to fighting 3rd world nations with shit optics, poor training and no air support.
In Iraq, we were engaged in almost every major patrol or operation. Except when we had armor. Patrolling with armor is a really nice feeling. Even if they get me, they are gonna get a 120mm next!
The Abrams to me is the ground equivalent of the B-52. Great basic design that allows for a boatload of upgrades. I'd say that the Abrams could feasibly have a 60-70 year life span
eh id disagree, with the current abrams design, i feel as if were reaching the limits of its potential, its already getting way to heavy for most modern infastructure, so i do not believe it will have a 60-70 year life span, plus tech is evolving way to quickly nowadays, and the abrams cant fit it all without extreme modifications, ie the abrams X which is barely an abrams anymore
@@Sachiel-Imaizumi 😂 its still mee abroms fam, Its still my beloved abrams whom many has fallen to its majestic might , a tank unlike any other my one , and only true love ❤
@@Sachiel-Imaizumi An M1 with TROPHY active protection survived 85 kill attempts -- including a Javelin shot. An M1 in Iraq rolled right over an IED embedded in the road and went airborne ... and just kept right on trucking. I was in Iraq over five years. I personally only heard of two M1 tanks going down. And _we_ destroyed them to prevent their capture after being disabled. These tanks are f'ing phenomenal, bro. Just like the Warthog or the Apache. Absolute game changers.
G'day Dark, Outstanding! Several years ago the Australian Army acquired fully factory refurbished M1A1 Abrams which were ideal for Australia's rugged outback terrain. They were so successful that orders soon went in for M1A2s. Easily transportable by our C-17s, they can be deployed swiftly anywhere in our continent and to other potential hotspots. A magnificent weapons platform that, with air cover, can provide a formidable, highly versatile and lethal response to most aggressors. Thanks for the video. Cheers Bill H.
I was in the 2nd cadre of 19K's to go through 19K OSUT (Basic & AIT - 17 weeks) at Knox in March of 1982. The battle of 73 Easting was 9 years off but in 1983 and 1985 there were previews of what would occur. Most of NATO competed for a Tank Gunnery trophy offered by Canada (The CAT Trophy) . For years this competition was dominated by the Germans. The introduction of the Abrams resulted in American tank companies scoring higher than they ever had and winning the trophy for the first time in decades.
What's the biggest contributor to that you think? Better FCS? I always figured the late M60s were modernised electronically but weak from an armor and gun standpoint.
@@rhorytrue5317 yea definitely the FCS was the biggest contributor to our success but there was also a slight boost in reload speed, a speedier and more stable ride and improved optics (Gunner's thermals were a huge improvement but did little to effect CAT).
It would be nice to see recognition of the Chobham Armour used on the Abrams attributed to the British who developed this armour way back in the sixties, Chobham armour is the informal name of a composite armour developed in the 1960s at the British tank research centre on Chobham Common, Surrey.
Abrams in American service have since had Chobham replaced by DU composite armor that offers superior protection to the tank. Was neat for the time though
while it was a brilliant invention, Chobham wasn't effective and was quickly replaced. That turbine Honeywell should have been replaced also, but politicians wanted American made. While I understand the "patriotic" sentiment, I'm thankful we at least dumped the American made gun.
I live in Detroit grew up around all the plants(gm,Chrysler,and ford). The tank plant was on 12 and a half mile between mound and vandyke. You'd see them being hauled on trains. Plus when we were kids there were a lot of armorys around that had a tank in front that you could go in and play on. Those days are long gone. Being 50 now I've seen the true days of freedom go Iike a leaf in the wind.
The true days of freedom? Brother, you are sorely confused. This country may be suffering from moral decay but it's more free than it's ever been in its history.
@Islayman you never had to be afraid to say what you wanted or do what you wanted. Now they listen to our calls the watch us on mass surveillance. They're trying to take our guns away from law abiding citizens. You get get blocked off of social media if they don't like what you say. You must be young born after 9/11. This country is turning into a communist /bolsheviks paradise. The fbi are acting like the old kgb in the soviet union.
I was a gunner on an M2A2 Bradley IFV but fought in the tank-heavy Bandit Team, TF Armadillo (3-35 Armor) in the first Gulf War. Being tank-heavy was reassuring at the time and when an Abrams fires it's main gun, it's visceral. One thing of note on the video. Al Busayyah was one of my early engagements. It was loosely defended by a brigade from the Iraqi 26th Light Infantry Division, supported by a group of "commandos" and a company of Iraqi T-54/55 variants. I think the reference in the video to 12 Abrams taking on an entire Iraqi division is a reference to 2/2 Cav's initial contact at 73 Easting against the Tawalkana Republican Guard Division.
What alot of people fail to realize is, the "best" isn't necessary when it comes to military equipment. Good enough, wins wars. The "best" would require drastically more expensive equipment and manufacturing processes.
I feel like having the ability to burn rat piss as fuel, and having an engine with almost no moving parts are extremely underrated features. I love the engineering of this tank, it goes so many places, and does so many other things other tanks can’t because of its turbine.
Diesel is widely available and for example the Leapord 2 gets much better fuel economy. IMO it's the only tank that can stand up to the Abrams and the least likely to do it.
The latest SEP upgrades, along with the new ammo are keeping the M1 as the best as long as we still have the great training the USA uses for their crews. My best friend's dad worked with Chrylser on that tank and I remember seeing it in the 70's... that turbine is both a blessing and a curse. Don't be surprised in SEPv5 doesn't see the main gun move up to 130 or 140mm cannon. SEPv3 is already in production/vehicle upgrade mode... SEPv4 is in testing.
I was a USAF enlisted and was shocked when we unloaded an M1 out of a C-17. They are huge aircraft with big engines. We move lots of stuff per trip with the C-17's. I was on the receiving end and when they opened the rear door of the C-17 I was surprised at how big and mean it looked. They opened all the aircraft doors, fired up the M1, and drove it out. I could not believe how much steel was moving in front of me. It really had that helicopter engine sound and when they put took it out of crawl mode and put it in Drive, we all were shocked at how fast it was out of the blocks. Hearing the turbine, I assumed the M1 would spool up in speed as a jet does. Wrong. That huge monster jumped and we all took about 10 steps back, quickly. The tankers were all happy they spooked us and we all laughed. I was also surprised by how fast the turret could spin 90 or 180 degrees. It was all electric/hydraulic. You get used to how fast big trucks and cement mixers move and adjust their beds. This was a whole new game. That shit was scary. This was back in about '83.
And logistics to supply fuel, ammo, and food. Intel to provide enemy locations. Infantry to protect against ATGM crews. Combined arms is a hell of a best
My step dad was a tanker during this time. He has pictures of Iraqi soldiers standing on the side of the road stunned. He said that they had so many tank kills they stopped painting barrel stripes onto their tank. When the smoke from all the oil fields was burning they would have to wait for Apaches to light up Iraqi tanks ( they would look for the sparks in the thick smoke to know where enemy tanks were) as they didnt have thermals on their M-60. They would look for the sparks of the apache rounds hitting an Iraqi tank and send a SABOT.
Worth noting, The longest tank kill record set by the British Challenger tank in 1991 during the Gulf war is still holding, even almost 30 years later, despite new wars and new technologies.
Supposedly a Ukrainian T64 BV broke that record not too long ago but after the time of Your posting, I still take it with a grain of salt since the fog of war is still heavy in that active conflict so You should too, though just thought I'd let You know an older tank 'may have' broken it.
After serving in the regular army I joined the Ohio Army National Guard and I was with the 1486th Transportation Company and we used to haul the 147th Armor Regiment down to Fort Knox so they could do their M1Abram live fire exercises.
I'm From Ohio! Thank You For Your Service! The Infantry Division For The Ohio Army National Guard (As Well As The Pennsylvania, Maryland, And New Jersey National Guard.) Is The 28th Infantry Division Also Known As "The Bloody Bucket Division."
From what I've been told, Rhode Island Army Guard had their Abrams parked at Ft. Pickett VA, and the tankers had to travel down to Virginia for training, as Pickett was the closest place for maneuver. Maintenance was contracted to guys in Virginia, but the machines belonged to RI ARNG.
The more I hear from this video, the more it sounds like an advert, (1 of the first to acquire Chobham armour) as a point in context, ok so who actually got Chobham armour first on their tanks? It was the russians wasn't it? Russian T-90's coated in Chobham armour!! Oh wait Chobham is an ENGLISH word so maybe it was the limeys? Unbelievable.
@@bongodrumzz Chobham composite armour was developed in the UK for the Chieftain Tank. After seeing a film of how effective it was, the US acquired it for the Abrams. The Challenger 1 was the first tank designed to use it, though they went into service in 1983. An improved version called Dorchester was used on the Challenger 2. It was also offered to the US but was turned down in favour of adding Depleted Uranium armour and extra armour plate to basic Chobham.
I was in the 1/509th Airborne in the 1980's when the M1 Came out. Before the M1, we had the M60A1's. Being a grunt, you learn that you will hear and feel, yes feel a tank long before you see them. Then, one day, we were training in Germany and we felt the tanks, that low rumble in the ground, but no engine noise, went and looked down the dirt road and it was M1's! They were so much more quieter. You could still feel them a mile away (exaggeration), but you did not hear them from nearly as far away as before. May not sound big, but that was and is a big deal.
In 78-79 at Ft. Bliss, Tx., I was a gunner on PV7 (Prototype Vehicle) for the XM1 OT2 (Operational Test). We tested the Abrams, then only known as the XM1, for a year. We made lots of changes to the original vehicles we received, and I can still see some of those changes we made on the tanks of today.
From Russian Subscribers in Asia This is PROPAGANDA it does not mention that AMERIKA has in the end lost every war since 1945 because of your liberal Progressive Leftists who run your military. Much Blessings Yuliya God 1st ⛪✝️
@@russianprincess3673 You are wrong. Only when the Progressive Leftist POLITICIANS stick their noses in does it go bad. Our military does just fine when the POLITICIANS are out of the equation IE Gulf war 1 and 2. Look to your own for miss run military. How is the Ukraine going for you hmmmm?
@@U.S._Army_Retired Your wicked Leftists control your military from behind the scenes for decades. Your nation needs God Fearing Anti Liberal Authoritarian Rule as we have. We repress Leftists. Thank you for your comment. God 1st ⛪✝️. Resettle in Mother Russia 💋
@@U.S._Army_Retired Soon NUKES will be used. We are fighting over 15 Leftist nations. We won't be defeated. If TRUMPS victory was not slolen a war would have avoided. Much Blessings Yuliya God 1st 💋✝️⛪
@@U.S._Army_Retired In the end Amerika lost every war they won each battle but lost each war. Your PROPAGANDIZED with Leftist untruths. We are destroying Ukraine. All news you receive is FAKE. We are told the truth n we love our PUTIN with over 86% approval. The Russian Red Army is the world's most powerful land army in the world USA has the most powerful NAVY. OUR NUKE SUBS ARE OFF ALL YOUR COASTS WAITING FOR INSTRUCTIONS. MUCH BLESSINGS YULIYA GOD 1ST
In the 70's & 80's the goal was not be under 1000 meters. Battle sights on the 105mm gun was 1200 meters. We could hit targets out to 1600 meters. A good gunners could hit targets out to 2400 meters!
I drove an M1 often. I'm 6'2" and wish I hadn't had to drive the M1 often. The Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine is sweet compared to typical diesel powered armored vehicles though. I loved the sound of that thing.
It's still very impressive. I've seen them driving full throttle many times and id be scared if I was on the other side edit: the crew training helps too
Thanks for not mentioning that the original gun was an adaptation of the BRITISH 105mm L7, a legendary weapon that saw service in numerous vehicles. Oh, M1 armour also has a bit of a connection to blighty too, I believe.
At this point with all the tech sharing and overlap of the NATO nations tanks, they all have relatively subtle differences in their strengths and weaknesses. One thing is clear. I would take any MBT from the US, UK, Germany, and France over any other nation every day of the week.
I wouldn't put the Leclerc in the same class as the Abrams, Leopard and Challenger. The Israelis' latest Merkava and the Korean K2 which looks like a baby Abrams are also top performers.
God I always loved the M1 Abram cause she's Both a destructive power and both has excellent accuracy and firing ranging and a beauty to be hold on the battlefield
@@denniswhite166 Hi Dennis. The heat of battle separates the men from the boys. Discipline trains men to act under immense pressure within unfamiliar surroundings. The ability to block out distractions and fall back on one's training is not an attribute a person is born with,.. it has to be taught. I am a seasoned commercial pilot with an airline with an impeccable record. The environment I operate in is unforgiving and a few of our competitors have fallen into the trap of complacency and paid heavily for it. I can attest that our record is not accidental but a result of acute training and discipline. Anyone can teach a man to aim and shoot, but it is during the course of battle does the quality of training prevail. Hope this helps.
@@denniswhite166 I'm based out of Africa on contract at the moment. I like to think of myself as a mercenary,...whoever pays for my services is where I'll go.. lol.
"AND JUSTICE FOR ALL" "A CAN OF WHOOPASS" "COWBOYS FROM HELL" These are just some of the nicknames of Abrams tanks in the US inventory. Just like the Air Force, the Army has allowed nicknames on these machines to be visible for all to see. And I think it's cool. It certainly adds some semblance of personality & uniqueness to each one of them, who otherwise would look the same as the others.
That was a cavalry unit that first engaged the Iraqis. Also, I believe, most of Abrams in Desert Storm were the M1A1HA version (120mm gun with extra depleted uranium armor).
I was in 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division in the Gulf War. Of the three maneuver battalions; 7-6 Infantry, 3-35 Armor and 1-37 Armor, only the latter had the "heavies" with the added DU armor. Interestingly, 4 of those 1-37 M1A1HA were lost at Medina Ridge. Shot in the ass end where the armor is thin. All crews survived which is good. In an AAR we were told the Iraqis shot them as the M1s moved through the positions at night. Now I think there is some debate about possible friendly fire. In any case, I have a photo I took of one of the burned out M1A1HA tanks.
@@derekh7441 As far as I can recall it was blue on blue incidents, usually due to the Thermals being kinda shit at longer ranges and the Abrams tanks not having the Infrared IFF paneling.
Man, these things are a true beast. While I was in the Marine Corps, I personally knew some Marines that operated an abrams before 2nd Tank Battalion got disbanded from the Marine Corps. I was lucky enough to get on one, and the feeling of that was incomparable. To see a whole convoy of them is crazy too.
The Marine Corps has given all of their Abrams, Bradley’s, and tube artillery over to the Army. They want your beloved Corps to be nothing more than a bunch of button- pushing missile mavens, instead of heavily armed, and armored amphibious assault shock troops. When asked what Marines would do, if they encountered enemy armor in battle, he replied: “We’d have to call up the Army!” I read that, and thought to myself: “Then why didn’t you just keep your fuckin’ tanks, DUMMY?!”
I met a schoolkid that trained on the year or so new platform Abrams MBT as a driver.. He loved it. Could not get him out of it... Imagine jamming to late 70's tunes while skimming around in relative comfort away from the crowd. Zoooom Zooom. .... he put it... He did mention distinctive capabilities, flawless accuracy , and all new defensive measures specifically designed for crew surviveability.. Last I heard he was manning a weather radar system in a very cold place.. And he did not desire a transfer.. Can't keep a good man down.
My cousin was a tanker in Desert Shield/Storm. He told me about a tank in his unit that drove around with a missile in its front end. The missile had struck the tank but didn't explode and it wasn't removed until after the shooting had ended.
3rd ACR? I know the loader. They got hit with an Iraqi sabot that got stuck between the main gun, and turret. The main gun wouldn't elevate, so they got down in a wadi, and beat it out with a sledgehammer.😆
I was 4/8 Cav 3AD. We had a Russian sabot stuck in the side armor for 2 days before it cracked in half and dropped the back half off. Gave our tanks to the Iron Dukes from Freidburg when they rolled in to replace us.
When we were talking about what the new tanks needed to be able to do, they were designed to be able to go ahead to head with the 42,000 tanks of the Warsaw Pact on the other side of of the Fulda Gap.
Nope, there was never any intention of trying to stop the Warsaw Pact at the Fulda Gap with conventional forces. Rather, the US planned to bury a bunch of tactical nukes there to use as massive land mines.
@@iangreenhalgh9280 that's right, the locals in those towns have had the Russians roll over once and they weren't going to experience it again. They were comfortable with the idea of "satchel" nukes blowing up in their own back yard to stop the Red Army. That's the reason why we wouldn't join them in pledging to a "no first use" agreement. My point, I guess, was that things like the Abrams tank and the A-10 were made with West Central Europe in mind. The nukes were supposed to slow them down. The nice thing is that after the end of the Cold War we found out that they had no such plans besides, I am guessing, something generated by the general staff as a make work project to cover the bases. We have contingency plans for everything.
@@johnjarpe9055 The Red Army never reached as far West as the Fulda Gap. The Europeans weren't consulted, Washington, as per usual, planned to act unilaterally as it wasn't their land they were planning to turn radioactive. Germany has wanted the US troops out for a longtime now, it is one of the main things fuelling the current far right unrest. The US foreign policyh is to continually provoke Russia nad drive a wedge between Russia and Germany and the Germans have simply had enough, they want the US troops to leave their soil, to close down Rammstein and the other US bases. Europe simply doesn't need or want any more US interference.
I got mine up to 55 mph before a transmission cooling shift broke, flung itself into the steering cables caused my tank to swerve violently while the steering t bar shook. Had to put a knee on it to keep it on the elevated road. Good times
I was the gunner of Charlie company 06, 4th Battalion 70th Armor, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division. I (my crew) destroyed 24 T-72s, BMPs, and BTRs in less than two hours. "Madina Ridge" as the battle was named, was like Mike Tyson vs a school yard bully. The Iraqis couldn't reach us with their T-72s and we were hitting targets all the way out to 4000m. Add to that the support we had from AH-64 Apaches and MLRS, it was a slaughter. I was just a 22 year old corporal. Yes, the M1A1, M1A2, and M1A2SEP3 are the best tanks in the world. Until someone else proves their tanks are better IN COMBAT, there is no debating.
1st Battalion 37th Armor, 1st Armored Division. Katterbach, Germany 1971-1974. Old Ironsides. M60A1. Company A Commo Chief. Soldier for life. Creighton Abrams was the battalion commander of the 37th Armored Battalion when they relieved the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne. 37th Armor also knocked out 55 Tigers and Panthers at the Battle of Arracourt, September 1944, losing only 14 Sheridans. Courage Conquers.
@@danielwyvern8892 Thank you very much for your service and sacrifice, brother! Yes, what the 30th Armor did in WWII was nothing short of amazing. The 101st were very happy to see our boys rolling in. Merry Christmas, brother!
If you have a great crew and if Armored brigades have infantry support and logistical support any tank/APC/ IFV then it can be unstoppable. At the moment the Abrams still is the best to ever grace the army. It has combat experience and is combat proven by throughout multiple campaigns such as The gulf war, Iraq and Afghanistan and even in Iraq and Syria where local militias were given the Abrams and its survivability is phenomenal. The fire control system is awesome too with its gun stability throughout any terrain and the wind sensor calculating how fast the wind is going as well as the laser range finder which calculates how far you need to shoot and it will adjust for you so all you have to do is just aim center mass at any target within 5,000M and it will hit center mass every time (As long as you bore sight it correctly lol)
The main gun stabilization system was developed by Signetics. The program was headed by a family friend. I was amazed when he told me that they could fire sideways on the run over rough terrain and consistently hit a target the size of a paper plate at over a thousand yards. It's like a 120mm sniper rifle.
@@KJ6EAD that’s super cool actually. And it’s amazing how far in 62 years from WW1 the Abrams was created with all of its components, thermal, IRNV, the stabilization of the main gun through out any type of terrain. And it’s astonishing of the profession in tank warfare where we all started from the British Mark I.
Yes, arguably the M1-A1 Abrams was the best tank in 1979. Then in 1983 the Challenger 1 Tank entered service, arguably a tank that is easily the equal of the M1-A1.
It’s perfect for open desert warfare, but it has a weight problem in places like Europe where the ground is muddy and rivers are many with bridges too weak for the Abrams tank. Its advantages and disadvantages in Europe would be very similar to the advantages and disadvantages of the German king tiger of WW2. The leopard 2 is probably the best tank for Europe right now.
You're going to have to be specific, Europe is a continent, it ranges from sub-tropics to the arctic and everything in between, and all kinds of different terrains as well. Your description of "Europe" as having muddy ground and many rivers only applies to some European countries, but most others don't qualify as such at all.
I wouldnt say its the best, but certrainly one of the most combat proven and best "fleet" . The thing about the abrams is that it has the economy of the US to further research and development and allies to share technology with. Its insane to think that the US has replaced their M60 reserve fleet completely with around 3000 105mm M1s and M1A1s.
You’d be hard pressed to find a better Tank than the M1A2 Sep V3 The Leo is the only thing hat comes close but that suffers from inferior Tungsten penetrators. Not sure if it’s possible to use US ammo in the Leo but if it is than you’d have a mighty find tank.
Nice to see some of the old M-60's and 60A1s. Those were my favorite clanks, being stationed in Germany, 3/3/33, Bravo Co., the Rock, Kirch Goens. "Men of war"
@@larryhelstrom1881 You bet! I still have my unit crest with the WW1 tank on it, and my field jacket with the 3rd Armor patch and the distinguished tank crew -1973 patch on the front. Fond memories of K.G. and the Rock!
Not a DAT but the M1 tank is still a impressive thing. I've actually got to see some of the original XM1 tanks when I was in 1-10 CATF then reflagged as 1-70th.
To their credit the Army recognized with Abrams the factor which is more important than firepower or armor protection: situational awareness. From its inception Abrams’ crews have enjoyed first class vision and sighting devices than any other vehicle. While Russia was trying to cram a bigger gun in the US realized that the 120mm is basically good enough to kill anything anyways. Point is the Abrams is physically good enough but also electronically far enough ahead to give an edge to any combat situation. It’s also designed to fight under air cover, which it’s never not had.
One of those tanks had 1/11 th ACR on it. That unit was with 3rd Armored Division. That was right up the road from Hanau where I was assigned in 1984. There were commercials on TV about getting too close to those tanks. If too close behind and the M1 Abrahms it literally would cook the paint off the car.
Great armor even for today, a dated but still capable gun, great ammunition (which is what is keeping the dated gun capable), relatively quick speed for an MBT, the ability to run off basically any fuel you can find for it, world class fire control, relatively easy maintenance for an MBT, and some of the best damn trained armor crewmen in the world? Yeah it might be a bit dated on paper but it still gets results and until we face another technological revolution on the tank scene it will continue to perform.
The gun isn’t “Dated” It’s still an insanely capable gun. But you are right that the Ammunition is what makes it as capable as it is. The Germans switched to the L/55 because they couldn’t match the Penetration that was required with the shorter L/44 when using the inferior tungsten penetrators. We never really had a need to switch to the L/55 since we have about the same penetration as the modern German gun+ammo because we use Depleted Uranium APFSDS. I do find it laughable when Leotards try to shit on the Abrams because of the L/44 only for me to point out the inferiority of German penetrators.
Not an accurate article. It makes out that Abrams is unbeatable. Come forward a few years and Abrams doesn’t perform that well in terms of its ability to withstand the new generations of RPG,s etc. It’s engine has proven to be unreliable that’s why the next versions will revert to a more conventional diesel power pack. Don’t get me wrong, the Abrams is still a formidable MBT but not invulnerable and is starting to show its age.
No. It's the british Challenger 2 tank the best tank in the world, M1 Adrams have been distroyed but for the challenger 1 and 2 tanks never been distroyed in any battle although an incident took place whereby blue on blue did damage a challenger 2. Chobham Armour is an invention by the BTRC (british tank research centre) and fitted to the challenger 1 and 2, this british technology is fitted on M1 Abram and K1tanks. Great Britain arm forces are small, they do a lot with a lot less capability.
Cool thing about the Abrams when it came out was the powerful engine. Really allowed a heavy weight to move. In the next iteration, I'm looking forward to the hybrid powerpack. Hybrids can allow for quicker burst acceleration, and longer range, but I'm sure there will be teething issues. I'm hoping that if it's a hybrid, they will allow full disconnect, showing the engine to propel it alone at reduced power until it can be repaired.
No doubt the best, but it requires a convoy of fuel trucks close behind them. And like we see in Ukraine, logistics wins wars, and they are valuable prey for enemies. Need to make these tanks more independent from logistic support.
@@thudthud5423 bruh I didn't mean your spelling mistake I was just asking if that was the correct documentary because there's more than one documentary on the 73 easting
@@ChainingDeer0 Ah, I was joking about the spelling mistake I found. Gotta laugh. Yes, there are several docs on that battle. It seems that the Bradley fighting vehicles also did more than hold their own in that battle as well.
Abrams was actually designed to hold two Browning .50 Cal guns one on the turret at the commanders seat and the second on top the main gun to be used as a sniper system. 2006-2014 Abrams mechanic
no! the Challeger 2 out performs it at every level, and (this bit is very important) keeps it's crews alive, the trouble is we have so damn few of them (one fact i noticed you over looked was it was not an M-1 that was hit by 18 RPG7's it was a Chellenger 1, not one of ours was lost in the gulf war, another thing you did not mention was the fact that the M-1 adopted the British army's BV (boiling vessle) yes one was hit by another Chellenger, but the crew survived and the tank was back in action in under 6 hours
the challenger does not have blowout panels or even lower plate composite armor and it still uses a rifled cannon that degrades its performance it also is pretty slow
@@dew7025 er try 65 kph mate, about 45 mph... and that's cross country. yes it does not have blow out panals but then as it's ammoe is inert (sabot is ajust a penitrater dart of DU and has no explosives in it, they are not needed, hesh rounds are explosive but that ammo seems to becoming a real rarity nowadays, remember Challenger's ammo is 2 peice (i.e bagged charges) and is stowed in casments that are protected, and now there is Challenger 3 that will be fitted with both the 120mm smooth bore main tank gun as used on the german leopard 2 tank redesigned turret) this is longer then the version that the M-1 uses
In the mid-80’s I was working at Aberdeen and was driving off-post for a meeting. I was headed west on US40 when 2 M1’s pulled alongside me heading somewhere. They had no trouble keeping up with traffic.
The M1 only real flaw is huge fuel consumption at combat idle. The Leopard 2 much lower fuel consumption while not moving might make it a superior tank in many scenarios.
The M1 has an engine with almost no moving parts that burns rat piss for fuel too. A turbine is much more reliable and durable than a diesel. The big downside is the cost, but if you’re willing to eat that, there’s no substitute for a turbine.
@@drewski5730 I read that Leopard 2 would a far better tank than the M1 for Ukraine precisely because it burns up 2-3 less fuel in typical use. As for reliability, all heavy machinery is powered by diesel engines and they are relatively low maintenance but a gas turbine might be much better.
I believe the newest version of the Abrams is going to address the issue of high fuel consumption at idle with the addition of a small engine to power electronic while stationary eliminating the need to run the turbine all the time...
@@killdizzle in terms of scale and time, the turbine wins. Because it’s so much more reliable, more tanks are ready for dispatch at any given time. Turbines have an order of magnitude less maintenance than a diesel as well, which means weeks less downtime every cycle, which in turn leads to more tanks in the field at any given time. The multi fuel option means that the tank can burn any hydrocarbon, from gasoline, to fuel oil, to diesel and Jet ->it doesn’t care if you’ve siphoned it from a truck that’s been sitting for 30 years. Which allows you if you’re separated from supplies, to take advantage of any fuel stock you can find in the field. Airplane operators often have a choice of compromise between less maintenance and lower fuel costs ->the successful ones always choose less maintenance because of the savings in time it provides over the long term.
@@harryguy76 The Swedish S-Tank had an hybrid gas turbine-diesel system to solve this problem in 1967! The U.S. being a huge oil producer and being brilliant at logistics, probably considered this issue minor when the M1 was designed.
this tank does stand toe to toe fairly well, but thats mostly to do with the fact that it shares a lot of identical parts to the very widely accepted "best" tank in the world, the Leopard 2A7 (starting these conversations on youtube always sucks due to all the armchair enthusiasts, honestly the "best" tanks are ones with a separate compartment for the ammo supply, other than that, its hard to go wrong with modern tank design, armor doesn't really matter and most stabilization technologies are plenty good, I have real world experience with modern tanks and I dont want to have a conversation about it, the internet has ruined that for me I only talk to people in the real world about this stuff, your a civilian, what tank you like doesnt matter, it doesnt even have to be a very good one, your not going to war)
Like let’s skip the fake that the Leo2 needs no blowout panels because DM63 doesn’t explode when experiencing a direct hit but only burns slowly and the fire suppression system act’s in microsecond virtually stopping any fire. But isn’t the A7V the most current version in use and the A7A1 is already planned to enter service in 2024?
@@exo068 like I said, I was only making a comment, I don't want to have a conversation, the internet ruined it for me If I could have disable replies somehow I would
@@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020 fighting a tank that is lacking thermals in a dust storm isn’t really that hard if they aren’t able to see you. But according to you theory some WW2 tanks would be the best because they saw more combat then any tank since the Cold War.
And I’m fairly sure that only we use the superior DU ammo. So we have the same penetration as the Leo2 with the L/55 But as far as “best tank” it’s honestly a tie.
In 79 I went to Aberdeen for a NBC school. Each day we march past a motor pool. One day the door was open and sitting in the bay was the XM1. 6 weeks later I was selected to receive a 30 min block of instructions on the drivers compartment. I was allowed to drive it around a track then on the tank path. Being a 19E helped greatly but I was one of the first privates to drive her. That’s an honor I cherish. Later in 84 we received our brand new M1A1 and it was like Star Wars. I was a young tank commander and fell in love with it.
You one lucky man! I can only dream of seeing XM 1. I already saw M1A1 at collings foundation museum in Massachusetts. I love how turret can be rotated juts by one hand pushing on the end of the gun! Love it.
What a machine!
That's amazing. What an opportunity.
I played on one in 79 at Allison Plant 3 in Speedway, Indiana. My dad was on design team.
You probably remember something wrong here mate, the A1 was introduced in 1985. 6 years after the M1 was adopted.
You either learned driving on the M1 or you learned driving on the XM1 and then got the M1.
I remember that time. When I was in the Infantry, I remember reading an article that quoted an Iraqi battalion commander. He said, "When I went into Kuwait, I had thirty-two tanks. After twenty-eight days, I still had thirty. After half an hour fighting the M-1, I had none."
God, just imagine being on the receiving end of such a hopeless fight, it'd just be so absolutely demoralising that it's not surprising they surrendered in droves.
I remember a story that the American tank crews were mystified by the fact that when they hit an Iraqi tank, they would see two flashes in quick succession. When the finally got to view the damage up close, they found that the first flash was when the projectile hit. The second flash was when the projectile came out the other side. They were not only penetrating the Iraqi armor, but they were also shooting all the way through.
@@seventhson27 Yes. That is the quick horror of the APDS round (I believe that is the type), called a silver bullet. They penetrate so quickly that it is basically a hull breech in a spaceship plus an explosion.
@@J_Stronsky Yep, and they remembered this half a generation later when we returned. The army melted away and then returned as guerrillas, to no one's surprise. Well, no one Should have been.
@@seventhson27 Not only the Abrams outranged the Iraqi T-62 by a huge distance, they also have aerial reconnaissance, night vision, competent crews and excellent logistic backing them up. The entire Gulf War is an almost perfect war for a nation to have in their win/loss history book.
I was working as a contractor for a large manufacture and got to know the security director pretty well. I always noticed a picture on his wall of an M1 firing in the dark and you saw the silhouette of the tank with a muzzle flash. I finally asked him about it. That shot was the very first one of the first Gulf War. I was like, what? I knew he was former Army but that was about it. He explained that he was tank commander of that first group of tanks to fire in Iraq. He told me he was rather old to go at the time, being a tank instructor, but he twisted many arms and made a bunch of noise and they finally let him go. They came upon the Iraqs who had no clue they were even there. He popped his hatch and snapped the picture as the first shot went out. I was dumbfounded that this nice old man was commanding those tanks, at that time in history. Last I heard, he retired, retired to take care of his wife who was suffering from Alzheimer's.
I was an M1 Abrams tank crewman from 1989 to 1993.I was deployed to the Gulf in 1991, but the ground war ended before we could be sent to the front. Crewing that big beast was one of the greatest experiences of my life. I don't miss the Army, but i sure miss being a tanker.
One of my bosses in a recent career was a tank commander during the gulf war and he said nearly all the guys that were tasked with reloading the barrel of the M1 Abrams’s during operation, got hand cancer and lost fingers and stuff later one, due to the depleted uranium. Is that your experience as well?
@@jellymop I think he's yanking your chain. I'm perfectly healthy thirty-three years on. Doesn't mean I won't die of cancer, but I haven't so far. Still have all my fingers, too.
@@Irish37 did you load the shells, depleted uranium? Thanks for clearing that up btw lol. It’s why I asked.
@@jellymop We received a full combat load of tank gun ammunition, but ended up not serving in combat, so my exposure to the rounds was minimal. Training rounds, however, of which I loaded hundreds, do not contain depleted uranium.
@@Irish37 ah ok. But the depleted uranium rounds aren’t radioactive and dangerous to handle by hand?
Worked at General Dynamics for two years. They are actually working on SEP V4. SEP V3 is already in production. They are slowsly rolling SEP V2s into Lima for retrofit. Despite it's age, this tank is still very modern. The upgrades that have gone into V2, V3, and soon V4 are, without saying to much, VERY impressive.
I worked on the SEPV4 while I was at Lima out in T&A. I painted brackets after welders added them and installed a few wiring harnesses before the project was temporarily shelfed.
Unless you replace that turbine with a diesel you won't win against China, and Russia will absolutely humiliate you. Peer to peer is a different beast to fighting 3rd world nations with shit optics, poor training and no air support.
@@kencollins6324 Go home Russian bot.
@@Phantom0123456 Grow up child.
actully the SEPv3 is already in service but iim glad to hear that the sepv4 project is confirmed
In Iraq, we were engaged in almost every major patrol or operation. Except when we had armor. Patrolling with armor is a really nice feeling. Even if they get me, they are gonna get a 120mm next!
And if they got the M1, they shouldn't run. They'll only die tired, because an A-10 is just waiting to remove a target from reality.
120 mm enema's REALLY hurt!
The Abrams to me is the ground equivalent of the B-52. Great basic design that allows for a boatload of upgrades. I'd say that the Abrams could feasibly have a 60-70 year life span
eh id disagree, with the current abrams design, i feel as if were reaching the limits of its potential, its already getting way to heavy for most modern infastructure, so i do not believe it will have a 60-70 year life span, plus tech is evolving way to quickly nowadays, and the abrams cant fit it all without extreme modifications, ie the abrams X which is barely an abrams anymore
@@Sachiel-Imaizumi 😂 its still mee abroms fam,
Its still my beloved abrams whom many has fallen to its majestic might , a tank unlike any other my one , and only true love ❤
Konkurs says otherwise
@@6komodo6 whats that
@@Sachiel-Imaizumi
An M1 with TROPHY active protection survived 85 kill attempts -- including a Javelin shot. An M1 in Iraq rolled right over an IED embedded in the road and went airborne ... and just kept right on trucking.
I was in Iraq over five years. I personally only heard of two M1 tanks going down. And _we_ destroyed them to prevent their capture after being disabled.
These tanks are f'ing phenomenal, bro. Just like the Warthog or the Apache. Absolute game changers.
G'day Dark, Outstanding! Several years ago the Australian Army acquired fully factory refurbished M1A1 Abrams which were ideal for Australia's rugged outback terrain. They were so successful that orders soon went in for M1A2s. Easily transportable by our C-17s, they can be deployed swiftly anywhere in our continent and to other potential hotspots.
A magnificent weapons platform that, with air cover, can provide a formidable, highly versatile and lethal response to most aggressors. Thanks for the video.
Cheers Bill H.
I was in the 2nd cadre of 19K's to go through 19K OSUT (Basic & AIT - 17 weeks) at Knox in March of 1982. The battle of 73 Easting was 9 years off but in 1983 and 1985 there were previews of what would occur. Most of NATO competed for a Tank Gunnery trophy offered by Canada (The CAT Trophy) . For years this competition was dominated by the Germans. The introduction of the Abrams resulted in American tank companies scoring higher than they ever had and winning the trophy for the first time in decades.
That’s epic
Yep we used our tank with their gun..
What's the biggest contributor to that you think? Better FCS? I always figured the late M60s were modernised electronically but weak from an armor and gun standpoint.
@@sldessel M256 is pretty much American by now.
The US modified so many aspects, there is little left of the L/44 other than the same ammunition
@@rhorytrue5317 yea definitely the FCS was the biggest contributor to our success but there was also a slight boost in reload speed, a speedier and more stable ride and improved optics (Gunner's thermals were a huge improvement but did little to effect CAT).
It would be nice to see recognition of the Chobham Armour used on the Abrams attributed to the British who developed this armour way back in the sixties, Chobham armour is the informal name of a composite armour developed in the 1960s at the British tank research centre on Chobham Common, Surrey.
Typically we sold this to the Americans. ...like the Harrier...
Abrams in American service have since had Chobham replaced by DU composite armor that offers superior protection to the tank. Was neat for the time though
while it was a brilliant invention, Chobham wasn't effective and was quickly replaced. That turbine Honeywell should have been replaced also, but politicians wanted American made. While I understand the "patriotic" sentiment, I'm thankful we at least dumped the American made gun.
That’s classified you won’t hear much about that if you do it’s opinion based
I agree, I'm surprised that wasn't mentioned.
I live in Detroit grew up around all the plants(gm,Chrysler,and ford). The tank plant was on 12 and a half mile between mound and vandyke. You'd see them being hauled on trains. Plus when we were kids there were a lot of armorys around that had a tank in front that you could go in and play on. Those days are long gone. Being 50 now I've seen the true days of freedom go Iike a leaf in the wind.
The true days of freedom?
Brother, you are sorely confused. This country may be suffering from moral decay but it's more free than it's ever been in its history.
To quote Metallica: "Sad but True."
@Islayman you never had to be afraid to say what you wanted or do what you wanted. Now they listen to our calls the watch us on mass surveillance. They're trying to take our guns away from law abiding citizens. You get get blocked off of social media if they don't like what you say. You must be young born after 9/11. This country is turning into a communist /bolsheviks paradise. The fbi are acting like the old kgb in the soviet union.
@Islayman many of them...
@Islayman too many to list. Things were just different in the 60s and 70s.
I was a gunner on an M2A2 Bradley IFV but fought in the tank-heavy Bandit Team, TF Armadillo (3-35 Armor) in the first Gulf War. Being tank-heavy was reassuring at the time and when an Abrams fires it's main gun, it's visceral. One thing of note on the video. Al Busayyah was one of my early engagements. It was loosely defended by a brigade from the Iraqi 26th Light Infantry Division, supported by a group of "commandos" and a company of Iraqi T-54/55 variants. I think the reference in the video to 12 Abrams taking on an entire Iraqi division is a reference to 2/2 Cav's initial contact at 73 Easting against the Tawalkana Republican Guard Division.
What alot of people fail to realize is, the "best" isn't necessary when it comes to military equipment. Good enough, wins wars. The "best" would require drastically more expensive equipment and manufacturing processes.
Not always. See: A10
The US had complete air superiority, that's life or death in any battle.
I feel like having the ability to burn rat piss as fuel, and having an engine with almost no moving parts are extremely underrated features. I love the engineering of this tank, it goes so many places, and does so many other things other tanks can’t because of its turbine.
Diesel is widely available and for example the Leapord 2 gets much better fuel economy. IMO it's the only tank that can stand up to the Abrams and the least likely to do it.
@@xxturbowesxx so is jet fuel. The Army operates a lot of helicopters
The new Abrams prototype uses an opposed piston diesel engine
EDIT: much easier for logistics
@@xxturbowesxx Absolutely agree on the Leopard 2 being the only tank that can stand up to it, they are practically cousin designs.
Abrams is better especially with the new upgrades the Germans don’t got crap on it even though they are the same tank
The latest SEP upgrades, along with the new ammo are keeping the M1 as the best as long as we still have the great training the USA uses for their crews. My best friend's dad worked with Chrylser on that tank and I remember seeing it in the 70's... that turbine is both a blessing and a curse. Don't be surprised in SEPv5 doesn't see the main gun move up to 130 or 140mm cannon. SEPv3 is already in production/vehicle upgrade mode... SEPv4 is in testing.
But the crews don't know which bathroom to use.
@@oldhag2881 woe be to the person who throws out the can instead of just tossing what was in the can!
I wouldn’t expect to see a change to 130-140mm until other European countries adopt a larger diameter and *successfully* push for standardization.
I was a USAF enlisted and was shocked when we unloaded an M1 out of a C-17. They are huge aircraft with big engines. We move lots of stuff per trip with the C-17's. I was on the receiving end and when they opened the rear door of the C-17 I was surprised at how big and mean it looked. They opened all the aircraft doors, fired up the M1, and drove it out. I could not believe how much steel was moving in front of me. It really had that helicopter engine sound and when they put took it out of crawl mode and put it in Drive, we all were shocked at how fast it was out of the blocks. Hearing the turbine, I assumed the M1 would spool up in speed as a jet does. Wrong. That huge monster jumped and we all took about 10 steps back, quickly. The tankers were all happy they spooked us and we all laughed. I was also surprised by how fast the turret could spin 90 or 180 degrees. It was all electric/hydraulic. You get used to how fast big trucks and cement mixers move and adjust their beds. This was a whole new game. That shit was scary. This was back in about '83.
It is not the tank, it is a well trained crews working as a team that is making these system successful.
It's both.
And logistics to supply fuel, ammo, and food. Intel to provide enemy locations. Infantry to protect against ATGM crews. Combined arms is a hell of a best
My step dad was a tanker during this time. He has pictures of Iraqi soldiers standing on the side of the road stunned. He said that they had so many tank kills they stopped painting barrel stripes onto their tank. When the smoke from all the oil fields was burning they would have to wait for Apaches to light up Iraqi tanks ( they would look for the sparks in the thick smoke to know where enemy tanks were) as they didnt have thermals on their M-60. They would look for the sparks of the apache rounds hitting an Iraqi tank and send a SABOT.
I'm named after General Creighton Abrams which the Abrams tank is also named from. It will always be my favorite tank.
Worth noting, The longest tank kill record set by the British Challenger tank in 1991 during the Gulf war is still holding, even almost 30 years later, despite new wars and new technologies.
Supposedly a Ukrainian T64 BV broke that record not too long ago but after the time of Your posting, I still take it with a grain of salt since the fog of war is still heavy in that active conflict so You should too, though just thought I'd let You know an older tank 'may have' broken it.
@@riverinafritsch2573extremely unlikely .
After serving in the regular army I joined the Ohio Army National Guard and I was with the 1486th Transportation Company and we used to haul the 147th Armor Regiment down to Fort Knox so they could do their M1Abram live fire exercises.
Seeing the trains going to and from Fort Knox when they were moving Abrams out was insane they’re crazy looking vehicles
Only in ohio
Only in Ohio
I'm From Ohio! Thank You For Your Service!
The Infantry Division For The Ohio Army National Guard (As Well As The Pennsylvania, Maryland, And New Jersey National Guard.) Is The 28th Infantry Division Also Known As "The Bloody Bucket Division."
From what I've been told, Rhode Island Army Guard had their Abrams parked at Ft. Pickett VA, and the tankers had to travel down to Virginia for training, as Pickett was the closest place for maneuver. Maintenance was contracted to guys in Virginia, but the machines belonged to RI ARNG.
Anybody else get goosebumps when you watch videos on how badass America is? God, despite all its flaws, I love this country. Proud to be 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
Can we just get some healthcare though?
@@killdizzle cool story
Chobham armour was British developed armour it’s also on British challenger tanks the latest version I believe is called Dorchester armour
The more I hear from this video, the more it sounds like an advert, (1 of the first to acquire Chobham armour) as a point in context, ok so who actually got Chobham armour first on their tanks? It was the russians wasn't it? Russian T-90's coated in Chobham armour!! Oh wait Chobham is an ENGLISH word so maybe it was the limeys? Unbelievable.
@@bongodrumzz Chobham composite armour was developed in the UK for the Chieftain Tank.
After seeing a film of how effective it was, the US acquired it for the Abrams.
The Challenger 1 was the first tank designed to use it, though they went into service in 1983.
An improved version called Dorchester was used on the Challenger 2. It was also offered to the US but was turned down in favour of adding Depleted Uranium armour and extra armour plate to basic Chobham.
@@bongodrumzz yes we DID invent it and use an upgraded version, we gave the yanks the secret of how to make it
@@bongodrumzz limeys ? Really sad man jog on !
@@garygcrook I think the Abrams uses depleted uranium amour now especially the new versions
The Abrams X demonstration was awesome! It kind of crazy seeing all the evolutions of the Abrams over the years
It has a lot of interesting technology. I just hope it has really good protection against ATGMs
Little known fact.
The African Elephant has been the standard unit of measure for a tank's mass since 1963
My mother-in-law weighs in at 5 African elephants.
I was in the 1/509th Airborne in the 1980's when the M1 Came out. Before the M1, we had the M60A1's. Being a grunt, you learn that you will hear and feel, yes feel a tank long before you see them. Then, one day, we were training in Germany and we felt the tanks, that low rumble in the ground, but no engine noise, went and looked down the dirt road and it was M1's! They were so much more quieter. You could still feel them a mile away (exaggeration), but you did not hear them from nearly as far away as before. May not sound big, but that was and is a big deal.
It's still capable. It also depends on how well trained the crew is.
On any tank, training is everything!
True. Leopard 2s were chewed up in Syria and the Germans freaked out until they learned how poorly the Turks operated them.
not still , it still shits on all other tanks out there it`s proven in combat
@@coreydarr8464 on anything performance based, training is everything
All these video game tankers in here...😆
In 78-79 at Ft. Bliss, Tx., I was a gunner on PV7 (Prototype Vehicle) for the XM1 OT2 (Operational Test). We tested the Abrams, then only known as the XM1, for a year. We made lots of changes to the original vehicles we received, and I can still see some of those changes we made on the tanks of today.
From Russian Subscribers in Asia This is PROPAGANDA it does not mention that AMERIKA has in the end lost every war since 1945 because of your liberal Progressive Leftists who run your military. Much Blessings Yuliya God 1st ⛪✝️
@@russianprincess3673 You are wrong. Only when the Progressive Leftist POLITICIANS stick their noses in does it go bad. Our military does just fine when the POLITICIANS are out of the equation IE Gulf war 1 and 2. Look to your own for miss run military. How is the Ukraine going for you hmmmm?
@@U.S._Army_Retired Your wicked Leftists control your military from behind the scenes for decades. Your nation needs God Fearing Anti Liberal Authoritarian Rule as we have. We repress Leftists. Thank you for your comment. God 1st ⛪✝️. Resettle in Mother Russia 💋
@@U.S._Army_Retired Soon NUKES will be used. We are fighting over 15 Leftist nations. We won't be defeated. If TRUMPS victory was not slolen a war would have avoided. Much Blessings Yuliya God 1st 💋✝️⛪
@@U.S._Army_Retired In the end Amerika lost every war they won each battle but lost each war. Your PROPAGANDIZED with Leftist untruths. We are destroying Ukraine. All news you receive is FAKE. We are told the truth n we love our PUTIN with over 86% approval. The Russian Red Army is the world's most powerful land army in the world USA has the most powerful NAVY. OUR NUKE SUBS ARE OFF ALL YOUR COASTS WAITING FOR INSTRUCTIONS. MUCH BLESSINGS YULIYA GOD 1ST
In the 70's & 80's the goal was not be under 1000 meters. Battle sights on the 105mm gun was 1200 meters. We could hit targets out to 1600 meters. A good gunners could hit targets out to 2400 meters!
The old rifled gun is still legendary!
and the pen was 100mm at 2400 m or less ?
this gun was only good at a range of 1000 - 1500 m
@Cascadian Rangers challenger 2 has a rifled 120mm. So I'm guessing the next version will definitely be rifled.
I like the M-60A3 tanks!
I love the Abrams ... but the M60 was such a classically good-looking tank.
I drove an M1 often. I'm 6'2" and wish I hadn't had to drive the M1 often. The Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine is sweet compared to typical diesel powered armored vehicles though. I loved the sound of that thing.
Can that engine run off of normal diesel fuel?
@@dannydaw59 jet fuel, diesel or petrol (gasoline) and probably lots of other things as well
@@dannydaw59The Honeywell engine will run on just about everything, but we used JP8 Jet fuel.
@@dannydaw59 Yep. Diesel 1 and 2, Kerosene, JP4 and 5, MOGAS if needed.
Exhaust grates make a good spot to hang a 50 cal lid to heat coffee or c-rats. Yes, I am that old.
Still one of the best. Thanks.
It's still very impressive. I've seen them driving full throttle many times and id be scared if I was on the other side edit: the crew training helps too
We do have the best trained soldiers
Tank crews are like submarine crews…. It takes a special kind of warrior . it’s extra special dangerous and extra special.
Thanks for not mentioning that the original gun was an adaptation of the BRITISH 105mm L7, a legendary weapon that saw service in numerous vehicles. Oh, M1 armour also has a bit of a connection to blighty too, I believe.
Fun fact::The Bradley got more tank kills than the Abrams in desert storm 🇺🇸
“A vehicle health monitoring system” means it’s gonna have a health bar😂
or a check engine light,
Like in Battlefield 3 & 4
Prefer a Sushi Bar.
I love these videos, but I always think it’s funny when they are talking about a vehicle but showing completely different vehicles.
At this point with all the tech sharing and overlap of the NATO nations tanks, they all have relatively subtle differences in their strengths and weaknesses. One thing is clear. I would take any MBT from the US, UK, Germany, and France over any other nation every day of the week.
I wouldn't put the Leclerc in the same class as the Abrams, Leopard and Challenger. The Israelis' latest Merkava and the Korean K2 which looks like a baby Abrams are also top performers.
@@KJ6EAD The Japanese *Type 10* may not be anything to scoff at either!
Agreed! The Germans always had and still have excellent tanks, but an upgraded Abrams will take a German tank any day! A treadhead forever!
@@jamesnelson6980 You're definitely part of a rather small minority, thinking an Abrahams could actually take a Leopard.
@@pieterveenders9793 That is your opinion, sir, and you have a right to it. But, you do know what people say about opinions.....
God I always loved the M1 Abram cause she's Both a destructive power and both has excellent accuracy and firing ranging and a beauty to be hold on the battlefield
German Gun and British Chobham designed armour and then later British designed Dorchester armour not just an American tank but a Nato effort.
It is the best in operation today. Challengers are coming, but today. It's the Abrams.
Though the M1 Abram is an amazing piece of machinery, its lethality is due more to the better training and discipline of its crew.
Ron, What do you base that on? Seriously IDK.
@@denniswhite166 Hi Dennis. The heat of battle separates the men from the boys. Discipline trains men to act under immense pressure within unfamiliar surroundings. The ability to block out distractions and fall back on one's training is not an attribute a person is born with,.. it has to be taught. I am a seasoned commercial pilot with an airline with an impeccable record. The environment I operate in is unforgiving and a few of our competitors have fallen into the trap of complacency and paid heavily for it. I can attest that our record is not accidental but a result of acute training and discipline. Anyone can teach a man to aim and shoot, but it is during the course of battle does the quality of training prevail. Hope this helps.
@@evarwilliams Great points Ron. Thanks for thinking for me - LOL So you fly for Qantas?
@@denniswhite166 I'm based out of Africa on contract at the moment. I like to think of myself as a mercenary,...whoever pays for my services is where I'll go.. lol.
@@evarwilliams Like the 1970's Air America pilots and crews made famous in Vietnam - LOL
Stay safe over there and ALWAYS do the pre-flight yourself.
ABRAMS = AWESOME BEAST on tracks.
love your videos. Keep it up
Lots of nice M60A1 footage!
I loved being a crewman in this machine. It is an outstanding vessel of battle supremacy.
If the kill ratio holds, the enemy would need to field approximately 714,000 T-72 equivalent tanks to take out all of the Abrams.
"AND JUSTICE FOR ALL"
"A CAN OF WHOOPASS"
"COWBOYS FROM HELL"
These are just some of the nicknames of Abrams tanks in the US inventory. Just like the Air Force, the Army has allowed nicknames on these machines to be visible for all to see. And I think it's cool. It certainly adds some semblance of personality & uniqueness to each one of them, who otherwise would look the same as the others.
God Bless our tank crews.
These videos keep me on the edge of my seat and bring tears to my eyes (especially when he commemorates the families and accomplishments of veterans)
I love the drive line power
That was a cavalry unit that first engaged the Iraqis. Also, I believe, most of Abrams in Desert Storm were the M1A1HA version (120mm gun with extra depleted uranium armor).
I was in 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division in the Gulf War. Of the three maneuver battalions; 7-6 Infantry, 3-35 Armor and 1-37 Armor, only the latter had the "heavies" with the added DU armor. Interestingly, 4 of those 1-37 M1A1HA were lost at Medina Ridge. Shot in the ass end where the armor is thin. All crews survived which is good. In an AAR we were told the Iraqis shot them as the M1s moved through the positions at night. Now I think there is some debate about possible friendly fire. In any case, I have a photo I took of one of the burned out M1A1HA tanks.
@@derekh7441 As far as I can recall it was blue on blue incidents, usually due to the Thermals being kinda shit at longer ranges and the Abrams tanks not having the Infrared IFF paneling.
Man, these things are a true beast. While I was in the Marine Corps, I personally knew some Marines that operated an abrams before 2nd Tank Battalion got disbanded from the Marine Corps. I was lucky enough to get on one, and the feeling of that was incomparable. To see a whole convoy of them is crazy too.
The Marine Corps has given all of their Abrams, Bradley’s, and tube artillery over to the Army. They want your beloved Corps to be nothing more than a bunch of button- pushing missile mavens, instead of heavily armed, and armored amphibious assault shock troops. When asked what Marines would do, if they encountered enemy armor in battle, he replied: “We’d have to call up the Army!” I read that, and thought to myself: “Then why didn’t you just keep your fuckin’ tanks, DUMMY?!”
I met a schoolkid that trained on the year or so new platform Abrams MBT as a driver.. He loved it. Could not get him out of it...
Imagine jamming to late 70's tunes while skimming around in relative comfort away from the crowd. Zoooom Zooom. .... he put it...
He did mention distinctive capabilities, flawless accuracy , and all new defensive measures specifically designed for crew surviveability..
Last I heard he was manning a weather radar system in a very cold place.. And he did not desire a transfer.. Can't keep a good man down.
you know it gets serious when you call Rheinmetall for a cannon :) Them Germans know how to make that stuff
not your usual theme, but very much enjoyed that👍
My cousin was a tanker in Desert Shield/Storm. He told me about a tank in his unit that drove around with a missile in its front end. The missile had struck the tank but didn't explode and it wasn't removed until after the shooting had ended.
3rd ACR? I know the loader. They got hit with an Iraqi sabot that got stuck between the main gun, and turret. The main gun wouldn't elevate, so they got down in a wadi, and beat it out with a sledgehammer.😆
@@Kilo-ct8dh he was in the 24th MID, I don't remember what regiment.
I was 4/8 Cav 3AD. We had a Russian sabot stuck in the side armor for 2 days before it cracked in half and dropped the back half off. Gave our tanks to the Iron Dukes from Freidburg when they rolled in to replace us.
Another masterpiece...of short film!
When we were talking about what the new tanks needed to be able to do, they were designed to be able to go ahead to head with the 42,000 tanks of the Warsaw Pact on the other side of of the Fulda Gap.
Nope, there was never any intention of trying to stop the Warsaw Pact at the Fulda Gap with conventional forces. Rather, the US planned to bury a bunch of tactical nukes there to use as massive land mines.
@@iangreenhalgh9280 that's right, the locals in those towns have had the Russians roll over once and they weren't going to experience it again. They were comfortable with the idea of "satchel" nukes blowing up in their own back yard to stop the Red Army. That's the reason why we wouldn't join them in pledging to a "no first use" agreement. My point, I guess, was that things like the Abrams tank and the A-10 were made with West Central Europe in mind. The nukes were supposed to slow them down.
The nice thing is that after the end of the Cold War we found out that they had no such plans besides, I am guessing, something generated by the general staff as a make work project to cover the bases. We have contingency plans for everything.
@@johnjarpe9055 The Red Army never reached as far West as the Fulda Gap. The Europeans weren't consulted, Washington, as per usual, planned to act unilaterally as it wasn't their land they were planning to turn radioactive. Germany has wanted the US troops out for a longtime now, it is one of the main things fuelling the current far right unrest. The US foreign policyh is to continually provoke Russia nad drive a wedge between Russia and Germany and the Germans have simply had enough, they want the US troops to leave their soil, to close down Rammstein and the other US bases. Europe simply doesn't need or want any more US interference.
I got mine up to 55 mph before a transmission cooling shift broke, flung itself into the steering cables caused my tank to swerve violently while the steering t bar shook. Had to put a knee on it to keep it on the elevated road. Good times
I was the gunner of Charlie company 06, 4th Battalion 70th Armor, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division. I (my crew) destroyed 24 T-72s, BMPs, and BTRs in less than two hours. "Madina Ridge" as the battle was named, was like Mike Tyson vs a school yard bully. The Iraqis couldn't reach us with their T-72s and we were hitting targets all the way out to 4000m. Add to that the support we had from AH-64 Apaches and MLRS, it was a slaughter. I was just a 22 year old corporal. Yes, the M1A1, M1A2, and M1A2SEP3 are the best tanks in the world. Until someone else proves their tanks are better IN COMBAT, there is no debating.
Thank you for your service! Awesome comment!
@@theresaherman You're welcome. It was the best time of my life.
1st Battalion 37th Armor, 1st Armored Division. Katterbach, Germany 1971-1974. Old Ironsides. M60A1. Company A Commo Chief. Soldier for life. Creighton Abrams was the battalion commander of the 37th Armored Battalion when they relieved the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne. 37th Armor also knocked out 55 Tigers and Panthers at the Battle of Arracourt, September 1944, losing only 14 Sheridans. Courage Conquers.
@@danielwyvern8892 Thank you very much for your service and sacrifice, brother! Yes, what the 30th Armor did in WWII was nothing short of amazing. The 101st were very happy to see our boys rolling in. Merry Christmas, brother!
Best military stories on Tube...
If you have a great crew and if Armored brigades have infantry support and logistical support any tank/APC/ IFV then it can be unstoppable. At the moment the Abrams still is the best to ever grace the army. It has combat experience and is combat proven by throughout multiple campaigns such as The gulf war, Iraq and Afghanistan and even in Iraq and Syria where local militias were given the Abrams and its survivability is phenomenal. The fire control system is awesome too with its gun stability throughout any terrain and the wind sensor calculating how fast the wind is going as well as the laser range finder which calculates how far you need to shoot and it will adjust for you so all you have to do is just aim center mass at any target within 5,000M and it will hit center mass every time (As long as you bore sight it correctly lol)
The main gun stabilization system was developed by Signetics. The program was headed by a family friend. I was amazed when he told me that they could fire sideways on the run over rough terrain and consistently hit a target the size of a paper plate at over a thousand yards. It's like a 120mm sniper rifle.
@@KJ6EAD that’s super cool actually. And it’s amazing how far in 62 years from WW1 the Abrams was created with all of its components, thermal, IRNV, the stabilization of the main gun through out any type of terrain. And it’s astonishing of the profession in tank warfare where we all started from the British Mark I.
Fascinating
10/10
Would fancy my chances against in in a leo2 and a chally2 ,
Great tank but like any vulnerable if facing a good crewed enemy.
Another really good video. Thanks
Yes, arguably the M1-A1 Abrams was the best tank in 1979.
Then in 1983 the Challenger 1 Tank entered service, arguably a tank that is easily the equal of the M1-A1.
Thank you!
It’s perfect for open desert warfare, but it has a weight problem in places like Europe where the ground is muddy and rivers are many with bridges too weak for the Abrams tank. Its advantages and disadvantages in Europe would be very similar to the advantages and disadvantages of the German king tiger of WW2. The leopard 2 is probably the best tank for Europe right now.
You're going to have to be specific, Europe is a continent, it ranges from sub-tropics to the arctic and everything in between, and all kinds of different terrains as well. Your description of "Europe" as having muddy ground and many rivers only applies to some European countries, but most others don't qualify as such at all.
I can see how deserts provide the best ground for heavy tanks (no forests to hide in, solid ground to be on)
Murica… lol.. nice vid, well done as usual. Thank you for all the info and effort put into this. Truly enjoyable. Keep up the good work 👍🏼
I wouldnt say its the best, but certrainly one of the most combat proven and best "fleet" . The thing about the abrams is that it has the economy of the US to further research and development and allies to share technology with. Its insane to think that the US has replaced their M60 reserve fleet completely with around 3000 105mm M1s and M1A1s.
You’d be hard pressed to find a better Tank than the M1A2 Sep V3
The Leo is the only thing hat comes close but that suffers from inferior Tungsten penetrators.
Not sure if it’s possible to use US ammo in the Leo but if it is than you’d have a mighty find tank.
Nice to see some of the old M-60's and 60A1s. Those were my favorite clanks, being stationed in Germany, 3/3/33, Bravo Co., the Rock, Kirch Goens. "Men of war"
PICKLES, SIR!
@@larryhelstrom1881 You bet! I still have my unit crest with the WW1 tank on it, and my field jacket with the 3rd Armor patch and the distinguished tank crew -1973 patch on the front. Fond memories of K.G. and the Rock!
Not a DAT but the M1 tank is still a impressive thing. I've actually got to see some of the original XM1 tanks when I was in 1-10 CATF then reflagged as 1-70th.
Your going to get a lot of comments for saying DAT.
Excuse me, sir. We are C-DAT's. Computerized dum-as* tankers.
To their credit the Army recognized with Abrams the factor which is more important than firepower or armor protection: situational awareness. From its inception Abrams’ crews have enjoyed first class vision and sighting devices than any other vehicle. While Russia was trying to cram a bigger gun in the US realized that the 120mm is basically good enough to kill anything anyways.
Point is the Abrams is physically good enough but also electronically far enough ahead to give an edge to any combat situation.
It’s also designed to fight under air cover, which it’s never not had.
One of those tanks had 1/11 th ACR on it. That unit was with 3rd Armored Division. That was right up the road from Hanau where I was assigned in 1984. There were commercials on TV about getting too close to those tanks. If too close behind and the M1 Abrahms it literally would cook the paint off the car.
Why would it cook the paint off? because the engine ran so hot?
@@bo64625 yes it would put out a stream of very hot exhaust.
We liked the M1 Heaters as infantrymen. Stand about 10 ft back and you would dry out rather quickly. The fumes sucked though.
Allons
Gelnhausen. 4/8 cav
Nothing on RUclips provides me with more "wow, I didn't know that" moments than Dark (Docs/Seas/Skies).
Great armor even for today, a dated but still capable gun, great ammunition (which is what is keeping the dated gun capable), relatively quick speed for an MBT, the ability to run off basically any fuel you can find for it, world class fire control, relatively easy maintenance for an MBT, and some of the best damn trained armor crewmen in the world? Yeah it might be a bit dated on paper but it still gets results and until we face another technological revolution on the tank scene it will continue to perform.
The gun isn’t “Dated”
It’s still an insanely capable gun.
But you are right that the Ammunition is what makes it as capable as it is.
The Germans switched to the L/55 because they couldn’t match the Penetration that was required with the shorter L/44 when using the inferior tungsten penetrators.
We never really had a need to switch to the L/55 since we have about the same penetration as the modern German gun+ammo because we use Depleted Uranium APFSDS.
I do find it laughable when Leotards try to shit on the Abrams because of the L/44 only for me to point out the inferiority of German penetrators.
I was a M88 crewman and loved watching the M1's fire at night.
In modern warfare and the advent of drones and javelins etc, the last place I'd like to be is stuck inside a tank.
Armor is inches thick. No K-bar ever punctured one. How thin is your shirt?
Not an accurate article. It makes out that Abrams is unbeatable. Come forward a few years and Abrams doesn’t perform that well in terms of its ability to withstand the new generations of RPG,s etc. It’s engine has proven to be unreliable that’s why the next versions will revert to a more conventional diesel power pack. Don’t get me wrong, the Abrams is still a formidable MBT but not invulnerable and is starting to show its age.
It never was the best in the world.
That's always been between the Leopard 2 and the Challenger 2.
Great video!
No. It's the british Challenger 2 tank the best tank in the world, M1 Adrams have been distroyed but for the challenger 1 and 2 tanks never been distroyed in any battle although an incident took place whereby blue on blue did damage a challenger 2. Chobham Armour is an invention by the BTRC (british tank research centre) and fitted to the challenger 1 and 2, this british technology is fitted on M1 Abram and K1tanks. Great Britain arm forces are small, they do a lot with a lot less capability.
Cool thing about the Abrams when it came out was the powerful engine. Really allowed a heavy weight to move. In the next iteration, I'm looking forward to the hybrid powerpack. Hybrids can allow for quicker burst acceleration, and longer range, but I'm sure there will be teething issues. I'm hoping that if it's a hybrid, they will allow full disconnect, showing the engine to propel it alone at reduced power until it can be repaired.
No doubt the best, but it requires a convoy of fuel trucks close behind them.
And like we see in Ukraine, logistics wins wars, and they are valuable prey for enemies.
Need to make these tanks more independent from logistic support.
As great as the M1 abrams is, it is a tank that only First World nations with a generous fuel budget and logistics trains can afford.
Very thoughtful content. I enjoyed your video very much. - USA
The turbine is kind of one of its best and worst features at the same time.
I was 17 and training at Fort Knox in 1980 when they were testing these!
If you want to see how well the M1 Abrams (and other US armor) has done in higher detail, search RUclips for "he Battle of 73 Easting".
Do you mean The greatest tank battles one? If so you are cultered
@@ChainingDeer0 And its "THE Battle.." not "HE Battle..." by the way.
@@thudthud5423 bruh I didn't mean your spelling mistake I was just asking if that was the correct documentary because there's more than one documentary on the 73 easting
@@ChainingDeer0 Ah, I was joking about the spelling mistake I found. Gotta laugh.
Yes, there are several docs on that battle. It seems that the Bradley fighting vehicles also did more than hold their own in that battle as well.
Abrams was actually designed to hold two Browning .50 Cal guns one on the turret at the commanders seat and the second on top the main gun to be used as a sniper system. 2006-2014 Abrams mechanic
no! the Challeger 2 out performs it at every level, and (this bit is very important) keeps it's crews alive, the trouble is we have so damn few of them (one fact i noticed you over looked was it was not an M-1 that was hit by 18 RPG7's it was a Chellenger 1, not one of ours was lost in the gulf war, another thing you did not mention was the fact that the M-1 adopted the British army's BV (boiling vessle) yes one was hit by another Chellenger, but the crew survived and the tank was back in action in under 6 hours
the challenger does not have blowout panels or even lower plate composite armor and it still uses a rifled cannon that degrades its performance it also is pretty slow
@@dew7025 er try 65 kph mate, about 45 mph... and that's cross country. yes it does not have blow out panals but then as it's ammoe is inert (sabot is ajust a penitrater dart of DU and has no explosives in it, they are not needed, hesh rounds are explosive but that ammo seems to becoming a real rarity nowadays, remember Challenger's ammo is 2 peice (i.e bagged charges) and is stowed in casments that are protected,
and now there is Challenger 3 that will be fitted with both the 120mm smooth bore main tank gun as used on the german leopard 2 tank redesigned turret) this is longer then the version that the M-1 uses
@@grahamkeithtodd you carry more anti infantry than sabot so it does matter
@@grahamkeithtodd sabot's can still explode they have powder in them
In the mid-80’s I was working at Aberdeen and was driving off-post for a meeting. I was headed west on US40 when 2 M1’s pulled alongside me heading somewhere. They had no trouble keeping up with traffic.
The M1 only real flaw is huge fuel consumption at combat idle.
The Leopard 2 much lower fuel consumption while not moving might make it a superior tank in many scenarios.
The M1 has an engine with almost no moving parts that burns rat piss for fuel too. A turbine is much more reliable and durable than a diesel. The big downside is the cost, but if you’re willing to eat that, there’s no substitute for a turbine.
@@drewski5730 I read that Leopard 2 would a far better tank than the M1 for Ukraine precisely because it burns up 2-3 less fuel in typical use.
As for reliability, all heavy machinery is powered by diesel engines and they are relatively low maintenance but a gas turbine might be much better.
I believe the newest version of the Abrams is going to address the issue of high fuel consumption at idle with the addition of a small engine to power electronic while stationary eliminating the need to run the turbine all the time...
@@killdizzle in terms of scale and time, the turbine wins. Because it’s so much more reliable, more tanks are ready for dispatch at any given time. Turbines have an order of magnitude less maintenance than a diesel as well, which means weeks less downtime every cycle, which in turn leads to more tanks in the field at any given time. The multi fuel option means that the tank can burn any hydrocarbon, from gasoline, to fuel oil, to diesel and Jet ->it doesn’t care if you’ve siphoned it from a truck that’s been sitting for 30 years. Which allows you if you’re separated from supplies, to take advantage of any fuel stock you can find in the field.
Airplane operators often have a choice of compromise between less maintenance and lower fuel costs ->the successful ones always choose less maintenance because of the savings in time it provides over the long term.
@@harryguy76 The Swedish S-Tank had an hybrid gas turbine-diesel system to solve this problem in 1967!
The U.S. being a huge oil producer and being brilliant at logistics, probably considered this issue minor when the M1 was designed.
I would like to know where they found all the video of early M60 tanks. Really cool, would like to see that as a separate video.
this tank does stand toe to toe fairly well, but thats mostly to do with the fact that it shares a lot of identical parts to the very widely accepted "best" tank in the world, the Leopard 2A7
(starting these conversations on youtube always sucks due to all the armchair enthusiasts, honestly the "best" tanks are ones with a separate compartment for the ammo supply, other than that, its hard to go wrong with modern tank design, armor doesn't really matter and most stabilization technologies are plenty good, I have real world experience with modern tanks and I dont want to have a conversation about it, the internet has ruined that for me I only talk to people in the real world about this stuff, your a civilian, what tank you like doesnt matter, it doesnt even have to be a very good one, your not going to war)
Like let’s skip the fake that the Leo2 needs no blowout panels because DM63 doesn’t explode when experiencing a direct hit but only burns slowly and the fire suppression system act’s in microsecond virtually stopping any fire. But isn’t the A7V the most current version in use and the A7A1 is already planned to enter service in 2024?
@@exo068 like I said, I was only making a comment, I don't want to have a conversation, the internet ruined it for me
If I could have disable replies somehow I would
that is your theory but the best tank in the world is the tank that is the most battle tested
@@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020 fighting a tank that is lacking thermals in a dust storm isn’t really that hard if they aren’t able to see you. But according to you theory some WW2 tanks would be the best because they saw more combat then any tank since the Cold War.
@@leosypher9993 What's your opinion about the new KF51 Panther?
Talks about Abrams tank.
Shows clips of different tanks and IFVs and sometimes the M1 Abrams. M1A1, - etc
The Abrams is a good tank bit it’s an equal to the British challenger and the German leopard tank all 3 use the same gun British composite armor
And I’m fairly sure that only we use the superior DU ammo.
So we have the same penetration as the Leo2 with the L/55
But as far as “best tank” it’s honestly a tie.