+Kim Lor Should be going back to woodland soon enough. www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/01/tanks-get-green-makeover-as-usareur-shifts-focus-to-europe.html?ESRC=eb.nl
+VpR81 You have a choice... use the fire extinguisher which then won't be available for putting out a fire on the tank, and will take weeks to recharge/replace... or run it over, which is free.
It's actually pretty silly, all this hoopla over one little tree when 80% of the Baltic is covered with trees. Maybe when the Russian tanks roll through they'll spare the trees.
+REDPOWERable Not possible when the L55 and M256 guns on the Nato tank out range the 2a46 and 2a82 guns on Russia tanks. Before they even get in range their turrets will be on the ground upside down.
there is nothing stealthy with 70ton vehicle running on tracks even with a turbine, i dont know if u ever seen/heard a moveing tank in reallife.. but the earth is shakeing when they move...
***** That is a myth, the M1 Abrams can go through rivers just as well as any other tanks with the proper kit, there's just no need for it, there's bridgelayers for a reason.
***** From what I've heard the so called Lion of Babylon was actually an improved T-72M1 with laminate and space armor added. But after the poor performance Russia claimed it was a downgraded version. T-72s can't penetrate Abrams side (even Abrams can't penetrate other Abrams side, at least the turret). Perhaps you mean the rear. But as far as I know only Abrams that were directly knocked out by enemy fire were hit at the rear by enemy infantry with anti-tank weapons, witch took the tank out of action (disabled, not destroyed). T-90 is an upgraded T-72, a renaming of T-72BMU because of the bad reputation of the T-72. Its like as if the M1A2 would have gotten a completely new M designation and name. T-90 can be destroyed with a single 120mm round at 4km. In the Gulf War Abramses took hits from other M1A1s at front and sides which were unable to penetrate even at point blank (when they tried to destroy an own Abrams that got stuck in mud). The Germans did a test with T-72 and T-80U (T-80U is comparable in armor to T-90) which they shot with a Leopard 2 A5 (not even the A6 with L55 gun). They aimed at the thickest armor at about 2km and all rounds went straight trough the entire tank, in trough the front, out trough the back. The German tanker that told me this also told me that if Russian tanks don't have ERA fitted that sabot rounds are not required but HEAT or even training rounds are enough to destroy them. They also shot a Leopard 2 A4 with a T-80, which could only penetrate within 1200m. And that was a Leopard 2 A4, before the Leopard 2 got the massive armor upgrade of the A5/A6/A7. Russian tanks are designed with a totally different doctrine: quantity. They are build cheap and simple to overwhelm their opponents with superior numbers. The only way a T-90 can knock out an M1A1/M1A2 Abrams, Leopard 2 A5/A6/A7, Challenger 2 or Merkava 3/4 is by using superior numbers to overwhelm it and hit its weak spot (rear). This will come at a price of losing several T-90s in the process. A costly tactic in casualties but Russia does not care about casualties and this tactic was effective for them in WW2. Russian tanks are of a different class, they are much lighter. For protection they rely much on reactive armor which adds limited protection against sabots and has been made obsolete not just by sabots but also by dual-warhead missiles. Another drawback of ERA (unlike passive armor) is that an ERA section/block works only once. Because of this ERA is not seen on western AFVs except as a cheap extra protection at weak spots on tanks or on IFVs/APCs. What is interesting on Russian tanks is the deployment of missile kill systems. Such systems mean that the best way to deal with a Russian tank is to use a western tank because ATGMs might not hit the target. As for wading. I have only seen this on Leopard 2 and T-80. Which requires a huge tube fitted to the commanders hatch. Such river crossings are very unpopular with the crews. This deep wading equipment isn't carried with the tank but has to be transported separately and it takes time to fit on and remove afterwards (you are not going in to battle with that huge tube on). It can be useful at times. But if the river is not to wide using a bridge layer is more effective and faster. The Abrams can be fitted with a deep wading kit. This is often used by USMC Abrams when disembarking from landing craft. Not sure if the US Army also uses this or how deep it can submerge. I do believe that especially for the Marines a deep fording kit can be extremely useful.
Love this video!! Awesome!! MORE!!!!
Matsimus I'm the first person to find this comment! Or at least recognize it. Can I get a free leaf blower?
LOL, desert tan Abrams operating in the forest. hahaha
+Kim Lor Should be going back to woodland soon enough. www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/01/tanks-get-green-makeover-as-usareur-shifts-focus-to-europe.html?ESRC=eb.nl
+JNT11593 yeah, but i doubt how quickly they can implement those changes.
+Kim Lor it doesnt take long to paint a tank
+Kana D. yeah, but they have other vehicles besides tanks that needs repainting
Kim Lor it doesnt take long to take a spray painter to a vehicle
Damn gas turbines. Setting trees on fire :D
+qelleri LOL yup
Subscribed!!
Was it "Oh, shit!" over the radio? LoL, that's life as is.
Приятного аппетита 🍜 🛡️🎩🪖🪖🪖😊😊😊
11:12 Wehrmacht reloaded^^
+cool cat
HAHAHA
Cool tank combination! Where is the British challenger tank?
its too slow , cant follow up :(
it´s to heavy ....sunk in
in the right path... ok.. add weeds; hell yeah >:D just like from "Buffalo Soldier" tank scene ( except its a syringe drug )
Can someone tell me why they would wast all that money on a tree killer at 1420 ?
I wonder how these tanks would fare against the WW2 equivalents... :P
WW2 tank could take out a track and thats about it. But they would have to get so close the modern tank would never allow it.
at last: Fire-....ududududiididudi...i tell you to burn !!! heheheee.... ;-)
Like real life war thunder.
huswsimonbla Wut
What is not to understand?
Why did they crush that tree?
To stop the fire
+VpR81 You have a choice... use the fire extinguisher which then won't be available for putting out a fire on the tank, and will take weeks to recharge/replace... or run it over, which is free.
It's actually pretty silly, all this hoopla over one little tree when 80% of the Baltic is covered with trees. Maybe when the Russian tanks roll through they'll spare the trees.
Cause the tree was in the way !
0:14 LOL, russian tanks are right in front of us, ow, they right behind us.
+REDPOWERable Not possible when the L55 and M256 guns on the Nato tank out range the 2a46 and 2a82 guns on Russia tanks. Before they even get in range their turrets will be on the ground upside down.
these turbines have a low noise which makes them good for night and stelth operations. Our Leo´s you can always here 5km away LOL
there is nothing stealthy with 70ton vehicle running on tracks even with a turbine, i dont know if u ever seen/heard a moveing tank in reallife.. but the earth is shakeing when they move...
kubanskiloewe turbine will glow like a christmast tree on IR optics and they drink gas like crazy.
No leopards
Yes leopards
This panzer force real. Too bad the Ukraine does not equal.
wow that caterwaul from the M1 is awful
dontbothermewithchannels sounds like a vacuum cleaner
***** In how many years has the heat signature mattered?
dontbothermewithchannels When you hear it in person, it sounds much more intimidating than a high pitched whine.
***** That is a myth, the M1 Abrams can go through rivers just as well as any other tanks with the proper kit, there's just no need for it, there's bridgelayers for a reason.
*****
From what I've heard the so called Lion of Babylon was actually an improved T-72M1 with laminate and space armor added. But after the poor performance Russia claimed it was a downgraded version.
T-72s can't penetrate Abrams side (even Abrams can't penetrate other Abrams side, at least the turret). Perhaps you mean the rear. But as far as I know only Abrams that were directly knocked out by enemy fire were hit at the rear by enemy infantry with anti-tank weapons, witch took the tank out of action (disabled, not destroyed).
T-90 is an upgraded T-72, a renaming of T-72BMU because of the bad reputation of the T-72. Its like as if the M1A2 would have gotten a completely new M designation and name.
T-90 can be destroyed with a single 120mm round at 4km. In the Gulf War Abramses took hits from other M1A1s at front and sides which were unable to penetrate even at point blank (when they tried to destroy an own Abrams that got stuck in mud).
The Germans did a test with T-72 and T-80U (T-80U is comparable in armor to T-90) which they shot with a Leopard 2 A5 (not even the A6 with L55 gun). They aimed at the thickest armor at about 2km and all rounds went straight trough the entire tank, in trough the front, out trough the back. The German tanker that told me this also told me that if Russian tanks don't have ERA fitted that sabot rounds are not required but HEAT or even training rounds are enough to destroy them.
They also shot a Leopard 2 A4 with a T-80, which could only penetrate within 1200m. And that was a Leopard 2 A4, before the Leopard 2 got the massive armor upgrade of the A5/A6/A7.
Russian tanks are designed with a totally different doctrine: quantity. They are build cheap and simple to overwhelm their opponents with superior numbers.
The only way a T-90 can knock out an M1A1/M1A2 Abrams, Leopard 2 A5/A6/A7, Challenger 2 or Merkava 3/4 is by using superior numbers to overwhelm it and hit its weak spot (rear). This will come at a price of losing several T-90s in the process. A costly tactic in casualties but Russia does not care about casualties and this tactic was effective for them in WW2.
Russian tanks are of a different class, they are much lighter. For protection they rely much on reactive armor which adds limited protection against sabots and has been made obsolete not just by sabots but also by dual-warhead missiles. Another drawback of ERA (unlike passive armor) is that an ERA section/block works only once. Because of this ERA is not seen on western AFVs except as a cheap extra protection at weak spots on tanks or on IFVs/APCs.
What is interesting on Russian tanks is the deployment of missile kill systems. Such systems mean that the best way to deal with a Russian tank is to use a western tank because ATGMs might not hit the target.
As for wading. I have only seen this on Leopard 2 and T-80. Which requires a huge tube fitted to the commanders hatch. Such river crossings are very unpopular with the crews. This deep wading equipment isn't carried with the tank but has to be transported separately and it takes time to fit on and remove afterwards (you are not going in to battle with that huge tube on). It can be useful at times. But if the river is not to wide using a bridge layer is more effective and faster.
The Abrams can be fitted with a deep wading kit. This is often used by USMC Abrams when disembarking from landing craft. Not sure if the US Army also uses this or how deep it can submerge. I do believe that especially for the Marines a deep fording kit can be extremely useful.