There is nothing new in the Abrams or Leopard itself that the Russians have not already known for decades. What is worth finding out is capability against their armor and studying various technologies in the tanks to counter them in the field.
knowing is one, but when you can test real vehicle even which are pair decades old it provide much better data, you can see how your AP rounds perform against armor, you can compare thermals and sights and etc.
I guess western tanks should use very dense barbed-wire-coils fully covering the leopard/abram etc tanks ... tank crew can use say traffic/road cone like plastic for smooth in/out ... most/all quadcopter type drones will fail .. lancent type winged ones will still remain which have kinetic force too... so the barbed wire coils should also be clamped/clipped with say 2-feet long welded posts/stems to dampen the impact of lancent like ones... lastly pieces (not shell) of say a 2-3 mm gauge sheets (any metal) will cause spring board effect even if lancent hits with full speed or atleast will cause penetrator to acquire most impact cuz of early detonation... LASTLY ... i have a tank design to keep them relevant even post ukraine war, counter drones and alot new exploits i am envisioning to come later... western militaries can take my services.
Thanks. This is what i wanted to say. This channel thinks russia is going to find some miracles. The only thing russia thinks, is how bad these abrams and leopards are.
It turned out that modern tanks do not fulfill their main purpose: their armor cannot withstand drone strikes. How can this be? It is urgent to create a new generation of robotic unmanned tanks that are invulnerable to drone attacks. Russia is already working on this. They will be killing machines, like in the movie Terminator. Invulnerable combat robots.
The Abrams and Leopard tanks themselves offer no groundbreaking surprises to the Russians, as their general designs and capabilities have been known for decades. What truly matters is understanding how these tanks perform against Russian armor and analyzing their advanced technologies to develop effective countermeasures on the battlefield.
American tanks don't have advanced tech. it just the west likes to add too much tech which in turn is bad for the solider because once you get dependent on them it makes your skill outdated/forgotten. In Russian tanks they have high tech also but they don't make it a priority because in war it gets damaged then you have to use your own skills as a solder it more efficient to use your own skills. This is the main reason Russia makes lower tech tanks easier to repair in battle, cheaper, and faster. It's Like a calculator once you start using it yes it makes the job faster, easier, but you forget how to do basic arithmetic without it. In war your tank gets hit no so-called high tech and your screwed cant remember how to use a map without GPS cant calculate distance without a measuring device, cant repair it to difficult.
the advanced technologies arent included in the Abrams we gave them. depleted uranium not there nor APS. theres nothing to study besides yes its a tank with no cool secretive equipment on it
7 дней назад+2
Whether it’s a Leopard, Abrams, or T-72, no tank is inherently superior to the others. What truly matters is having a skilled and competent crew. A modern, high-tech tank is useless without experienced operators. This war has shown that even Soviet-era tanks can defeat advanced armor, proving that Western tanks aren’t as invincible as once believed.
@@warrior3614 not really, tankers are very skilled. The armor as you see in ukraine is just a box of metal. It has no US armor on it. Stripped completely. Ukranian crews are not trained well on these at all. but to build something to say they take it back to research it is pure propaganda as they already know all about it. to say the crews lack is not a true statement at all.
Don't think they want to "reverse engineer" the Abrams, just check it out and look for its weaknesses. They seem to have settled on medium tanks and against heavy tanks like the Challenger and Abrams
Russian tanks only have 3 crew .... so need a smaller turret .... and hence smaller tank overall .... French LeClerc tank is similar to Russian tanks .... it also has an auto gunloader and 3 crew - still have the same firepower .... and are a lot more manoeuvrable
Russia has several copies of every weapon in natos arsenal. Missiles,armored vehicles, tanks etc. If they wanted real secrets they just need to play warthunder
What will they find out? How not to kill the crew by sitting on a powder keg? These tanks are so old, that there is probably nothing that isn´t known already.
Ah the "advanced" western tanks that have an "advanced" loader in the form of an "advanced" human loading those "advanced" shells into the breech, just like our "advanced" ancestors have been doing for centuries. This channel is truly advanced.
The abrams has a similiar rate of fire for not having an autoloader. Also getting shot doesnt make the entire tank explode. I rather the ammo go then the crew. Can always buy another tank. Plus the 'advanced' is refering to the ammo storage and how they place the nececary equipment for optimal space and ergonomics. Something Russian tnaks dont have due to their literal cramped interior
@@Waffles-q2s Russian tanks are 10-15 tonnes lighter. So space argument is null and void. It is common sense that Abrams would have more free space. Second argument is autoloader. Autoloader -> additional crew member. In case of catastrophic loss it's better to lose 3 than 4 crew. So just on that argument alone autoloader is better. Performance wise is negligible difference. Therefore not an argument either.
Massive facepalm. Drone warfare has been around since the 1940s, the concept of unmanned aircraft and missiles goes as far back as the Wright brothers. It's not a new concept, just the cost and advancement of it have gradually gotten cheaper and better.
F16 and Patriot has literally been very effective against Russia. Even though U.S. only gave them a small amount. Don’t be silly. Think logically. You think 31 Abrams will last against thousands of Russian Tanks? Let alone the 6 F16s sent to Ukraine. Yet they still hold back Russia.
I guess western tanks should use very dense barbed-wire-coils fully covering the leopard/abram etc tanks ... tank crew can use say traffic/road cone like plastic for smooth in/out ... most/all quadcopter type drones will fail .. lancent type winged ones will still remain which have kinetic force too... so the barbed wire coils should also be clamped/clipped with say 2-feet long welded posts/stems to dampen the impact of lancent like ones... lastly pieces (not shell) of say a 2-3 mm gauge sheets (any metal) will cause spring board effect even if lancent hits with full speed or atleast will cause penetrator to acquire most impact cuz of early detonation... LASTLY ... i have a tank design to keep them relevant even post ukraine war, counter drones and alot new exploits i am envisioning to come later... western militaries can take my services.
Until now, US armor has not seen a real enemy ability since Korea. We are fed that we have the best system in the world. We don't. In a conventional war, NATO and the West would lose. If it turned nuclear, we all lose.
Ya, I remember the USA was originally planning to send Ukraine a version of the M1A2. Later they changed the model to be sent to a version of the M1A1 because it could be delivered sooner.
@Brian-om2hh Americans have never fought a war with peer or near peer opponents after WW2. The Russians have and are gaining practical experience along with Ukrainians on how to fight. America will need to catch up.
@@protivliberastov9182 yes they are but that their newest tanks there are some but flaws with the t90m the reverse speed is really slow. I don't really know a bunch about the t14 but I heard it had a "bad" engine and it broke down at a show they haven't built many of them either
@@ryanjones7 the T14 Armada hasn’t been seen since it was in the parade and broke down. They blame it on a bad driver, but we all know the reasons why it had to be towed away from the parade.
What for? So they too can carry the explosives used to destroy them? If Russia has any brains at all, they will take the lessons from this war and adapt them to the FUTURE, not the PAST. Swarms of tanks charging across open fields is a thing of the past. The future is expendable cheap drones - aerial AND surface. They'd be much better off simply taking the money used to make one tank, and instead use it to make hundreds of drones. You think the Ukrainian battlefield is swarming with drones? Wait till you see what the next war looks like. Except these drones won't be the toys we're seeing now. They will be AI controlled so that a single operator can control the firepower of an entire armoured division. They will be cheap enough to consider expendable, but effective enough to replace vastly more expensive systems. The future of war is robotic.
The last thing the Russians want to do is copy the American M1A1 Abrams tank, as that would lead to a useless tank that is vastly overweight, average when it comes to fire power, generates so much heat it can be spotted from Mars, requires 50 gallons per mile requiring servicing every 34 minutes and costs 20,000 times more than a superior Russian made tank. Same goes for the Challenger II tank us Brits are coming out with the Challenger III tank the two differences being the III costs three times more than the II and the III will last 3 days on the battlefield rather than 2.
1st... superior? HAHAHHAHA no. By russian standards...maybe. But, by most practical standpoints. No. The abrams and lepards are faster, more manueverable and offer comperable protection without sacrificing crew comfort. A single penetration on a T80, t72, t60 will almost always detonate the tank as its autoloading system becomes a bomb and launches the turret 50 thousand feet into the air. Abrams and lepards have better survivability. as a hit doesnt always kill the crew. You run out of crew, no one can man your cheaper tank. We maintain higher crew levels and higher survivorbility. 2nd. Useless? You know Desert storm. The largets tank battle since ww2. How many abrams were destroyed? But lets get real. Yes the abrams main form is more expensive than the T80s. But, you also have to account that we can deal with the repair hours and the cost. Cause its cheaper to repair than build a new tank. So how many Tanks have Russia lost during this conflict compaired to the abrams? Ill answer that Around 2600. 17 - 2600 even if the t80 cost 300,00 dollars to make, those 30 abrams would be cheaper than the 'superior russian tank' stop sucking putin dick and maybe read articals that dont say " This message is approved by Putin's propoganda department."
That's not true, Russia currently has 2 mil people military active personnel. Currently in Ukraine war participating 500k so it is 25%. But still to imagine they got another 75% in reserve is insane
@@denbalabol4673 Dude the other 75% is not in reserve. This is the active reserve. The total pool is 31 million reservists... I know, if you need to use them all you are screwed. But again, this huge army is like 1/15 of the full potential...
Then u know nothing about tanks. We didn't give them the current Abrams tank. And no top secret armor. That's a tank that was in storage since the 80s there bud.
@@solomonkhan7199 no one is saying its a miacle weapon. But mind you how many tanks did russia lose in iraq compaired to US tanks. Hell. How many russian vehicles were destroyed by the bradley?
@@tomalfreysr2639 Hmm... about that.... WHY? NATO is telling us they will support Ukraine to the hit, that this war is NECESSARY to secure Europe. But they are sending only a handful of obsolete weapons that not even they think can survive on this battlefield? I mean that's even more shocking than the idea the Abrams isn't as good as they were claiming. Do they want Ukraine to win this war... or do they actually want to prolong this war so they can keep making us pay for obsolete weapons no one even wants?
Why does the Abrams suck? Compared to what? Drones? Hand held launchers? Most of what Russia is fielding right now can't do much against an Abrams in a direct frontal face off. If a T-90M met an Abrams head on it only takes 1 penetrating shot from the Abrams 120mm with APFSDS-T to set the Russian's back 3 crew members, and 5 million dollars... Meanwhile the Abrams crew has free tickets to front row seats of the Russian space program as the turret of the T-90M blasts off 30 yards into the sky. Every armored vehicle in Ukraine on both teams is vulnerable to all attacks from above since virtually ALL tanks have paper thin roof armor. Other tanks are suffering as much as the Abrams is (The model M1A1 Abrams models Ukraine has received is fundamentally on the same level as the first line of Leopard II's as well as being about the same age with the exception of a 5 year difference between the M1A1 model and first line Leopard II's.) Russian soldiers aren't stupid. Despite how they are portrayed by media, they are specifically trained, and making use of training to target the weak points of these tanks. They aren't stupid to try to take them head on. Right now, drones and infantry with anti tank weapons (Like ATGM's) are what's killing tanks, not other tanks (I don't know the statistics of how many tanks were lost against aircraft)
@@343guardian5T90 M have external armour and he can survive after 18 hits of RPG (was video about it) and surely shell will destroy that armour firstly and after doesn’t effect armour of turret itself. Also T90 M have anti drone armour and active system against impacts.
for understanding: the drawings of the Abrams tank and all the documentation translated into Russian were at Uralvagonzavod 6 months before it was put into service in the United States.
Abramsa mieli Ruskie już 30 lat temu. Polski wywiad sfabrykował dokumenty, na które USA wysłały Abramsa do Turcji na testy. Czołg nigdy tam nie dotarł. Przeładowano go w Grecji na inny statek i znalazł się on w CCCP.
well hope your happy with scraps as UA is lying full with it since 2021 ........ and growing . lol how simple some can think about broken armour which is as old as me !
Like we haven't received the latest models of the T-80, radar systems, surface-to-air missiles, electronic jammers and other late model Russian technology from the Ukrainians as part of the price for their receipt of our tanks?
There is nothing new in the Abrams or Leopard itself that the Russians have not already known for decades. What is worth finding out is capability against their armor and studying various technologies in the tanks to counter them in the field.
Here is the most incredible thing about this... General Norman is telling us that this "MAIN battle tank" was designed in the 70's and 80's to have nearly zero defense against "'top-attack". It was known in the 1940's that tanks were vulnerable to air attack, but 40 years later the US was still developing MAIN battle tanks with no defense against it? That shows these tanks were not even designed to fight the "last war" - they were clearly designed ONLY to fight non-peer adversaries. Goatherders and farmers with Hiluxes and RPG-7s - not a REAL war against an opponent with a similar level of military power.
Armata is a firework of dust in the eyes. Yes, it has been developed, but Russia is not the Soviet Union. It has neither the capacity for production nor the strength for new infrastructure (training crews and repairmen, production of spare parts and ammunition, and so on)
Armata has been tested in combat conditions in Ukraine. This is the tank of the future, but there are few of them because they are not mass-produced. And in this war, well-known tanks are needed for large-scale battles, the crews of which do not need to be retrained.
@@solomonkhan7199 You just supplemented me with your objection. For three hundred years now, victories have depended on the economies of states, and the armed forces are only an appendage of industry.
@@alikshpak160 Everything is very bad. The USSR won by all accounts in the race with Nazi Germany. Napoleon lost the race with Britain, have you heard anything about the reasons for the attack on the Russian Empire?
The thing that makes western tanks superior is crew survivability. Getting hit in a western tank might mean you lose it, but you keep the crew. Russian tanks when hit take the crew with them.
I'm not an expert on military equipment but the thought comes to mind that drones have made tanks obsolete much like aircraft carriers made battle ships obsolete in the 40's.
in history the USA did bring always Su technics into their hands, often advanced to theirs, to learn. Of course since the computer /chip times it turned. But SU/Russia has had not nearly that access even then with more shy spy counter actions.
У меня вопрос, если абрамс лучший танк в мире почему на него установили советскую динамическую защиту контакт-1? Зачем лучшему танку в мире технология 60 летней давности?
because of size and its engine mostly. The export versions use basic armor that russia either has already or has something better. The abrams is much larger than russian counterparts and thus it needs a larger engine and more armor for its size. Plus its engine is a jet turbine.
@@reynardus1359 the ammo and not the crew inside so. I rather be in a flaming abrams than in a t80. To be fair T80s dont really catch fire as they tend to EXPLODE more often than not
Lt. General Mark Hertling visited some Russian facility long time ago (implied to be in the 90s) and the Russians somehow obtained an M1 Abrams. He suspected that it was from a middle eastern country which already operated one. Based on this and the time, I would guess either Saudi Arabia or Egypt
Russia has its own impressive Armata, so it wouldn't be fair to compare the M1. In this war, we've come to understand that the most important thing isn't how well tanks perform. It's how we deal with drone attacks. We've also come to realize that factors like cost, productivity, and ease of repair are often more crucial than the intricate specs of a weapon.
So far, though repairs arent easy. The american M1 has out performed russian counterparts. Mostly for the fact most strikes dont cause catostrophic damage. T80s practically detonate every time they get hit and its a complete destruction. While many m1s just lose their ammo and can be recovered later ( except for the examples here of course.)
really no need to worry, wont learn much except the Abrams is much heavier and really not suited to terrain in winter, I think the Russian's have enough problems of their own trying to figure out how to stop the Turrets blowing when they get hit.
Are you kidding talking that manual gun loading could be subject of reversing engineering instead of auto loading? It’s more likely more secure ammunition stowage will be brought into production let’s say in separate external containers.
Actually... I think the whole concept of an MBT is going away. Tanks are a thing of the past. Think of it this way... do you really need 40 rounds of 120mm ammunition stored in a vehicle that is not likely to last much longer than a few minutes? All they are doing is carrying around the explosives used to destroy them. What we will see is a new generation of lightly armoured vehicles acting as command and control for fleets of small unmanned combat vehicless. The manned vehicles will stay back while the unmanned vehicles do the direct fighting. That's the future, not the same technology that was already becoming obsolete the moment man-portable guided missiles were invented.
Тут много пишут - типа не узнают ничего нового, устаревшие и тд . Но я так скажу - всегда полезно иметь экземпляры для реальных тестов. Не зря же и американцы скупали десятки Т72 Советских версий в 1990е годы , хотя уже имели Т72 из Восточной Европы и Ирака.
The only thing they will know is what we already let them know. The design, shape and general specs of the abram has been known publicaly for years. Anything they hope to gain isnt there. Our export models dont use the same armor or electronics. What is there, is more or less western design culture that doesnt fit what russia priotitizes
I don't understand the Russians, they themselves said that Western tanks are "garbage" and these tanks do not offer anything new to current tanks such as updating or improvement.
the question is that the old military technologies of the 30s have remained, there is nothing new, the weapons are from the same years, but the phones are good, although the Chinese are clearly already superior to America in technology, an obvious fact
@ You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, armour packages and fire control systems have advanced greatly since the M1A1 first rolled off the assembly line. Do you honestly think that the Americans would be sending their latest variants if they knew they were inevitably going to fall into Russian hands?
@@darthtrudeau4907 I am sure that everyone knows everything, it is not necessary to take something broken from the battlefield for this. I can say with absolute certainty that only war can move progress, unfortunately
Of course, the Abrams and Leopard 2 tanks will be examined by Russian experts. But I really don't see what they, something that Russian experts don't already know, could find in these tanks?! These are not the first captured Abrams and Leopard 2A6?! Which, to make matters worse, on the battlefield and in a real war proved to be worse than the above-mentioned T-72B3M and T-90M. In fact, in most combat segments, the above-mentioned Russian tanks proved to be better! More precisely, both the Abrams and Leopard and Challenger 2 proved to be worse than the Russian modernized tanks T-72B3M/T-72B1MS, T-80BVM, and the new T-90M. Also, when comparing these aforementioned Western tanks with the new Chinese tanks on the T-72 tank platform. Or the Czech modernized version of the T-72M4CZ, and with the Polish PT-91... In all the crucial segments for a tank and for a real war and battlefield today, these tanks are better than the Abrams or the Leopard 2, not to mention the Challenger 2 and the T-55 is better than the Challenger 2. Some of these crucial segments for a tank on a real battlefield and in a real war are: Speed, maneuverability, agility, logistics, maintenance, maneuverability, effect on the battlefield, the possibility of using the tank as mobile artillery with a range of up to 10 km, crew training, invested and what is gained from the tank on the battlefield, greater range of the gun than 5 km, the possibility firing laser guided missiles... And what is most important is the sustainability of tanks in a real war and on a real battlefield! Where exactly the conflict in Ukraine proved that maintenance and general maintenance means the production of the tank itself and parts for it. When the Leopard 2 and Challenger, as well as Abrams in a real war, are completely unsustainable! So it is not possible to mass-produce these tanks for the first war, due to the low level of production capacity and repair of these tanks in the West as well as the price of that same production, but it is possible to mass-destroy them! And on the battlefield, they did not show any better than Russian tanks, quite the opposite! Also maintaining them in working condition is complicated and very expensive! In all of these mentioned segments when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine, and when a real war is in question! Tanks of Soviet/Russian origin have proven to be much better than Western tanks. When it comes to the price, procurement, maintenance, repair and modernization of tank tanks. The numbers are simply incredible! And here things are even worse for tanks of Western origin. We can go even further so that everyone understands. The Russians are overhauling their T-72B from scratch and modernizing it to the T-72B3M variant, the 2022 modernization model, all costing the Russian military less than $500,000. Because we have just confirmed the price of this tank, all with anti-drone protection, at the recently concluded arms fair in Russia, the export price of the T-72B3M in the latest modernization from 2022 is $550,000. Which means that for one Abrams M1A1 in the modernized version donated to Ukraine, which costs $10 million per piece, we can buy as many as 20 T-72B3M tanks?! And to make matters worse, each T-72B3M is a significantly better tank in every sense, especially when the performance on the battlefield in Ukraine is better than this version of the Abrams tank, and of course than the Leopard 2 in almost all versions from A4 to A6, the Challenger 2 is not worthy of even a comment in this comparison. By the way, in this war so far, the T-72B3M has already destroyed at least one Abrams, if not two, and about a month ago a Leopard 2A4. So, on the battlefield in Ukraine, in a real war, the T-72B3M has a significantly better performance on the battlefield than Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2. Even worse is that the Western media, massively in all mainstream media, the US and NATO media hold the whole of Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, a huge part of Asia, Africa ... Pushing the propaganda narrative that as soon as Western tanks come to Ukraine, they will be "game changers"?! When the Russians see them, they will flee to Siberia in fear, and that these same Western tanks will destroy hundreds of Russian tanks?! Because they are "so much better tanks than Russian ones, because the Russians produce tanks by taking chips from washing machines that were produced in the West, and even when they produce a tank, the new one is already defective"?! However, the war has shown exactly the opposite! That Western 3rd generation tanks are extremely unreliable, especially their opto-electronics, in a real war like the one in Ukraine. And the Ukrainians themselves say so! I always ask unreasonable people a simple question. Have you ever wondered why China and India, which are the world's military superpowers! Who can buy whatever they want for their army and not ask for the price! Or even copy whatever they want in the Chinese case... Why did these countries decide to buy a license for T-72 or T-90 tanks?! For the simple reason that they are smart people and they know what I already stated in the text. That Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 are unsustainable in a real war, when the production and maintenance of these tanks is a question, because they are too expensive to produce and too complicated and too expensive to maintain and train the crew.... And that on the battlefield you don't get much more from them than T-72 or T-90 tanks, on the contrary! They are less reliable tanks than the Russian T-72/T-90 tanks.
That's great! Everything is absolutely correct! In the Russian segment of the Internet, there are interviews with Russian tank crews who shot down two Abrams tanks in one battle. I have only one question: if Russia gives captured Leopard and Abrams tanks to China, how soon will the Chinese flood the arms market with copies of Leopards and Abrams?
@@solomonkhan7199 I don't believe the Chinese want to copy Abrams and Leopards honestly because if they did, not all of their tanks would be based on Soviet/Russian platforms. I want to say that they have had the opportunity to produce copies of 3rd generation Western tanks before, but they clearly don't want to!
The truth about the M1A1 is that it can be taking out by $2000 dollar drone. WOW It will not be a good weapon only after they are able to put 4 drone motors on it and get it to fly.
I am most certain that the Russians will make massive leaps in weapon advancement and capability, once they discover the cutting edge 1980’s tech behind the M1A1 Abrams🔥🔥
It has been said already many times. There's nothing new to learn. Russian tanks are better overall. American tanks have slightly better electronics and perhaps ergonomics. That's it.
I believe they can't believe they built a heavy tank that can't fight in many places in the world. The Abram tank will be hopeless in sub Saharan Africa. It won't be able to move
There are no secrets M1A1 has that Russians are in dire need of knowing. Not the vaunted armor (no DU on these), not the thermals or anything of the sort. M1A1 is a mediocre tank of average design that isn't well thought-out. Abrams itself is unimpressive. Only good thing about it is the kind of explosive material used in the HEAT and HE rounds. Shit, Abrams is an anti-tank gun while Russian tanks are anti-fortification guns. Once they upgrade their ammunition with more phlegmatized explosives, speed up the loading and get the faster reverse gear, it'll be rid of all the issues that can be levelled at the tank. Abrams has nothing that they can learn in terms of technical execution.
Nie ma niezniszczalnych czołów tylko są źle trafione. Ze szkolenia LWP (dawne czasy) : pierwszy strzał ...w transmisję. Pytam : co to ? W gąsiennicę. Aha... A potem (w unieruchomiony czołg) ile wlezie (do zniszczenia - eksplozcja/pożar). Poziom wyższy doprowadzić do kotła człgów (Leopard) i zrzucenie na nie lekkiego jądra (małego ładunku nuklearnego)
you do know the m1a1 is the 80s and early 90s model. the m1a2 sep v2 is the modern and most advance version, not to mention the m1a2 has way better armor
Big heavy and expensive tanks have no future on the battlefield. No matter how great a tank is, it's very easy to disable it with a drone these days. I think they are not looking for some secret in Abrams, they are just curious and looking for interesting technical solutions. The electronic equipment and its scope and possibilities will also be interesting for them, if it has not completely burned down.
reverse engineering dinosaurs ? ..... I loved the ridiculous line about how they were "interested" in the manually loaded gun ..... that is the exact reason why the Abrams etc are so big in the first place - you need a 3 man turret ..... which means you need a bigger tank ..... then "Ergonomics" yeah it would be fascinating no doubt for the Russians to see how to fit 3 people into a turret ?
true. But when the Chinese copied the C-17 after acquiring all the drawings, they didn't get the remaining 10%. So they basically made some slight changes based on their own needs, what they wanted etc. Doesnt have to be a 100% replica.
am gonna go into scrap metal....who helps with collecting ...we divide the reapings...:)) here the price is 0.22 eucents ....iron ...copper silver gold electronics have to do some melting
I think modern MBT are the least secret things of any modern equipment. The FCS might have some secrecy, but everything else from composites to manufacturing processes is already known to any nation and most is even revealed at trade shows when they pine for buyers. There really wasn't a big breakthrough in composite for decades now, so even if the whole MBT is classified, you can easily speculate what kind of protection is has and what kind of materials it uses, and any nation can easily reproduce those these days. MBTs are slowly but surely becoming less relevant on a modern battlefield. As said, the only actual interesting part for espionage remains the electronics and software.
Even though Russia captured one M1A1 they can't copy all the features in it. American tank in ukrain are modefied I guess. Im from Philippines hope you notice me
I don't think that Russian will use those tank to improve their tank. Usually Russia and Western have opposite design mindset (Auto/Manual, Cheap to built vs super expensive to build tech...). I think the reverse engineering is mostly to see what are the weak point and how to jam the electronics of M1.
The important things they are looking at is the software in the electronics. The problem is that the minute the Russians try to access the software the system will erase the software and turn itself into a brick.
There is nothing new in the Abrams or Leopard itself that the Russians have not already known for decades. What is worth finding out is capability against their armor and studying various technologies in the tanks to counter them in the field.
knowing is one, but when you can test real vehicle even which are pair decades old it provide much better data, you can see how your AP rounds perform against armor, you can compare thermals and sights and etc.
I guess western tanks should use very dense barbed-wire-coils fully covering the leopard/abram etc tanks ... tank crew can use say traffic/road cone like plastic for smooth in/out ... most/all quadcopter type drones will fail .. lancent type winged ones will still remain which have kinetic force too... so the barbed wire coils should also be clamped/clipped with say 2-feet long welded posts/stems to dampen the impact of lancent like ones... lastly pieces (not shell) of say a 2-3 mm gauge sheets (any metal) will cause spring board effect even if lancent hits with full speed or atleast will cause penetrator to acquire most impact cuz of early detonation... LASTLY ... i have a tank design to keep them relevant even post ukraine war, counter drones and alot new exploits i am envisioning to come later... western militaries can take my services.
Thanks. This is what i wanted to say. This channel thinks russia is going to find some miracles. The only thing russia thinks, is how bad these abrams and leopards are.
So in other words...they may learn something new
It turned out that modern tanks do not fulfill their main purpose: their armor cannot withstand drone strikes. How can this be? It is urgent to create a new generation of robotic unmanned tanks that are invulnerable to drone attacks. Russia is already working on this. They will be killing machines, like in the movie Terminator. Invulnerable combat robots.
The Abrams and Leopard tanks themselves offer no groundbreaking surprises to the Russians, as their general designs and capabilities have been known for decades. What truly matters is understanding how these tanks perform against Russian armor and analyzing their advanced technologies to develop effective countermeasures on the battlefield.
American tanks don't have advanced tech. it just the west likes to add too much tech which in turn is bad for the solider because once you get dependent on them it makes your skill outdated/forgotten. In Russian tanks they have high tech also but they don't make it a priority because in war it gets damaged then you have to use your own skills as a solder it more efficient to use your own skills. This is the main reason Russia makes lower tech tanks easier to repair in battle, cheaper, and faster. It's Like a calculator once you start using it yes it makes the job faster, easier, but you forget how to do basic arithmetic without it. In war your tank gets hit no so-called high tech and your screwed cant remember how to use a map without GPS cant calculate distance without a measuring device, cant repair it to difficult.
the advanced technologies arent included in the Abrams we gave them. depleted uranium not there nor APS. theres nothing to study besides yes its a tank with no cool secretive equipment on it
Whether it’s a Leopard, Abrams, or T-72, no tank is inherently superior to the others. What truly matters is having a skilled and competent crew. A modern, high-tech tank is useless without experienced operators. This war has shown that even Soviet-era tanks can defeat advanced armor, proving that Western tanks aren’t as invincible as once believed.
@@warrior3614 not really, tankers are very skilled. The armor as you see in ukraine is just a box of metal. It has no US armor on it. Stripped completely. Ukranian crews are not trained well on these at all. but to build something to say they take it back to research it is pure propaganda as they already know all about it. to say the crews lack is not a true statement at all.
@@warrior3614 tell me you know nothing about how US tank crews train without telling me you know nothing about how they train
Don't think they want to "reverse engineer" the Abrams, just check it out and look for its weaknesses. They seem to have settled on medium tanks and against heavy tanks like the Challenger and Abrams
The same heavy tanks that get bogged down on the battlefield?
I agree these heavy tanks can't be used in many places except deserts or open areas.
Во всем мире будут изучать опыт этой войны . Будут разработаны новые танки и их новое применение .
Russian tanks only have 3 crew .... so need a smaller turret .... and hence smaller tank overall .... French LeClerc tank is similar to Russian tanks .... it also has an auto gunloader and 3 crew - still have the same firepower .... and are a lot more manoeuvrable
@GaryKennedy-g7p Ukrainian tanks only have one gear. Reverse.
Russia has several copies of every weapon in natos arsenal. Missiles,armored vehicles, tanks etc. If they wanted real secrets they just need to play warthunder
War Thunder is owned by the MOD thru a Cypriot proxy lol
What will they find out? How not to kill the crew by sitting on a powder keg? These tanks are so old, that there is probably nothing that isn´t known already.
Ah the "advanced" western tanks that have an "advanced" loader in the form of an "advanced" human loading those "advanced" shells into the breech, just like our "advanced" ancestors have been doing for centuries. This channel is truly advanced.
The abrams has a similiar rate of fire for not having an autoloader. Also getting shot doesnt make the entire tank explode. I rather the ammo go then the crew. Can always buy another tank. Plus the 'advanced' is refering to the ammo storage and how they place the nececary equipment for optimal space and ergonomics. Something Russian tnaks dont have due to their literal cramped interior
@@Waffles-q2s the joke went straight over your head
@@Waffles-q2s the advanced Russia drone is f up your outdated Abram junk.
@@EvilGenius124 Sarcasm so "advanced" it went over his head😂
@@Waffles-q2s Russian tanks are 10-15 tonnes lighter. So space argument is null and void. It is common sense that Abrams would have more free space.
Second argument is autoloader. Autoloader -> additional crew member. In case of catastrophic loss it's better to lose 3 than 4 crew. So just on that argument alone autoloader is better. Performance wise is negligible difference. Therefore not an argument either.
The Abrams was developed in the 1970’s. Drone warfare wasn’t even a fantasy then.
Massive facepalm. Drone warfare has been around since the 1940s, the concept of unmanned aircraft and missiles goes as far back as the Wright brothers.
It's not a new concept, just the cost and advancement of it have gradually gotten cheaper and better.
@@Predator42ID drone warfare is a thing but the use of small suicide drone at large scale is still new
Abrams, Patriot, f-16, aren't they supossed to be a gamechanger? 😂
They are
They have been used and still being used as targeting practice
Немецкий Тигр был лучше советского Т 34 . Но правила игры не изменились .
No not against worlds best tank the t90. Remember when Putin said that 😂😂
Yes, but the game changed them 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
F16 and Patriot has literally been very effective against Russia. Even though U.S. only gave them a small amount. Don’t be silly. Think logically. You think 31 Abrams will last against thousands of Russian Tanks? Let alone the 6 F16s sent to Ukraine. Yet they still hold back Russia.
Can you buy a M1A1 Abrams for self defence?
Yes... in Russia :D
they're half price; slightly used. Conditions vary
T&C applies
@@krc306even you can buy, is this called as tank?
pour tout char ""abrams" achetés cash, 2 vidanges offertes
I guess western tanks should use very dense barbed-wire-coils fully covering the leopard/abram etc tanks ... tank crew can use say traffic/road cone like plastic for smooth in/out ... most/all quadcopter type drones will fail .. lancent type winged ones will still remain which have kinetic force too... so the barbed wire coils should also be clamped/clipped with say 2-feet long welded posts/stems to dampen the impact of lancent like ones... lastly pieces (not shell) of say a 2-3 mm gauge sheets (any metal) will cause spring board effect even if lancent hits with full speed or atleast will cause penetrator to acquire most impact cuz of early detonation... LASTLY ... i have a tank design to keep them relevant even post ukraine war, counter drones and alot new exploits i am envisioning to come later... western militaries can take my services.
The art of speaking without saying anything
They are going to study the manual loader?
Advanced Young Blackman Loading System.
Т-90М «Прорыв» - лучший танк в мире
Correct
Sure it is. Some have already been destroyed or captured in Ukraine....
@@Brian-om2hh К конце надо обязательно хрюкнуть. Это по украински.
Hello from New Zealand, we agree the T-90 is better 👍
После войны в Украине его стоит переименовать в Т-90М "Подрыв"
Z pewnościa niektòre rozwiązania techniczne z M-1 mogą być przydatne czy Rosji czy Korei Pòłnocnej.
Pozdrawiam z Polski.
🇵🇱
That's why you guys get the k-2 panther instead of Abrams. That's right decision.
That is why they only sent the A1A models
Until now, US armor has not seen a real enemy ability since Korea. We are fed that we have the best system in the world. We don't. In a conventional war, NATO and the West would lose. If it turned nuclear, we all lose.
Yea but the basic Design is the same for all versions.
I’d bet these don’t have chobham
@@tomascastillo4676 same design different technology
Ya, I remember the USA was originally planning to send Ukraine a version of the M1A2. Later they changed the model to be sent to a version of the M1A1 because it could be delivered sooner.
an expensive tank destroyed by $ 80.00 dolars russian drone.??
😂😂😂❤🎉🎉🎉
A bit more than $80.
Destroyed by Temu drone.
You think Russian tanks are faring any different to drones? At least Western tanks don't evaporate their crews when hit.
@habpar6531 where are all these western tanks? As much as it takes, as long as it takes... so where are these tanks?
Unfortunately american equipment can only fight farmers. Not an actual army.
They actually failed against Afghani shepherds and vietnamese rice farmers. They're only a gamechanger in hollywood movies.
The Japanese might disagree after the Pacific campaign (which you don't seem to recall) was over.....
@@Fatherbouba And how did Russia get on in Afghanistan? I'll tell you. They lost 15'000 men in ten years...
@Brian-om2hh Americans have never fought a war with peer or near peer opponents after WW2.
The Russians have and are gaining practical experience along with Ukrainians on how to fight.
America will need to catch up.
If Afghanistan farmers received near a trillion in military aid like Ukraine the US wouldn't have lasted 2 weeks lmao@@Brian-om2hh
There's nothing special about that tank. Its just a heavy garbage can For clowns...😂😂😂
Same goes for Russian tanks so many flaws
@@ryanjones7perspective Armata and new T90 M are lightweight and not worse than Abrams)
@@protivliberastov9182 yes they are but that their newest tanks there are some but flaws with the t90m the reverse speed is really slow. I don't really know a bunch about the t14 but I heard it had a "bad" engine and it broke down at a show they haven't built many of them either
@@ryanjones7 the T14 Armada hasn’t been seen since it was in the parade and broke down. They blame it on a bad driver, but we all know the reasons why it had to be towed away from the parade.
Maybe they could finally figure out blowout panels, at least
What for? So they too can carry the explosives used to destroy them? If Russia has any brains at all, they will take the lessons from this war and adapt them to the FUTURE, not the PAST.
Swarms of tanks charging across open fields is a thing of the past. The future is expendable cheap drones - aerial AND surface. They'd be much better off simply taking the money used to make one tank, and instead use it to make hundreds of drones. You think the Ukrainian battlefield is swarming with drones? Wait till you see what the next war looks like.
Except these drones won't be the toys we're seeing now. They will be AI controlled so that a single operator can control the firepower of an entire armoured division. They will be cheap enough to consider expendable, but effective enough to replace vastly more expensive systems.
The future of war is robotic.
It’s already installed in T 90 M turret
Russia,China and Iran never use US weapons 😂😂😂
Cry the West
(Iran uses F14 tomcats and F4s)
@@mahirshahriarhussain5756 Iran used to be on America's side (until 1979)
@Chickenworm9394 no shit sherlock.
@Chickenworm9394 Yes, Captain Obvious, sir. 🫡
@@mahirshahriarhussain5756 And they copied the TOW
The last thing the Russians want to do is copy the American M1A1 Abrams tank, as that would lead to a useless tank that is vastly overweight, average when it comes to fire power, generates so much heat it can be spotted from Mars, requires 50 gallons per mile requiring servicing every 34 minutes and costs 20,000 times more than a superior Russian made tank. Same goes for the Challenger II tank us Brits are coming out with the Challenger III tank the two differences being the III costs three times more than the II and the III will last 3 days on the battlefield rather than 2.
Still a 50% increase on the challanger 😂
👍💯👍🤣👍💯👍🤣👍💯👍🤣👍💯👍!!!!
1st... superior? HAHAHHAHA no. By russian standards...maybe. But, by most practical standpoints. No. The abrams and lepards are faster, more manueverable and offer comperable protection without sacrificing crew comfort. A single penetration on a T80, t72, t60 will almost always detonate the tank as its autoloading system becomes a bomb and launches the turret 50 thousand feet into the air. Abrams and lepards have better survivability. as a hit doesnt always kill the crew. You run out of crew, no one can man your cheaper tank. We maintain higher crew levels and higher survivorbility. 2nd. Useless? You know Desert storm. The largets tank battle since ww2. How many abrams were destroyed? But lets get real. Yes the abrams main form is more expensive than the T80s. But, you also have to account that we can deal with the repair hours and the cost. Cause its cheaper to repair than build a new tank. So how many Tanks have Russia lost during this conflict compaired to the abrams? Ill answer that Around 2600. 17 - 2600 even if the t80 cost 300,00 dollars to make, those 30 abrams would be cheaper than the 'superior russian tank' stop sucking putin dick and maybe read articals that dont say " This message is approved by Putin's propoganda department."
"superior Russian made tank"
+15 rubles
Russia uses 5% of its army
That's not true, Russia currently has 2 mil people military active personnel. Currently in Ukraine war participating 500k so it is 25%. But still to imagine they got another 75% in reserve is insane
@@denbalabol4673 🤣🤣
@@denbalabol4673 Dude the other 75% is not in reserve. This is the active reserve.
The total pool is 31 million reservists...
I know, if you need to use them all you are screwed. But again, this huge army is like 1/15 of the full potential...
If That.!😂
Russia has 5% left you mean
We were very surprised when we found out about the Abrams tank. We expected it to be much better.
Then u know nothing about tanks. We didn't give them the current Abrams tank. And no top secret armor. That's a tank that was in storage since the 80s there bud.
The Abrams tank was first lost in Iraq. It was then that it became clear that this was not a miracle weapon.
@@solomonkhan7199 no one is saying its a miacle weapon. But mind you how many tanks did russia lose in iraq compaired to US tanks. Hell. How many russian vehicles were destroyed by the bradley?
@@tomalfreysr2639 Hmm... about that.... WHY? NATO is telling us they will support Ukraine to the hit, that this war is NECESSARY to secure Europe. But they are sending only a handful of obsolete weapons that not even they think can survive on this battlefield? I mean that's even more shocking than the idea the Abrams isn't as good as they were claiming.
Do they want Ukraine to win this war... or do they actually want to prolong this war so they can keep making us pay for obsolete weapons no one even wants?
@@solomonkhan7199 You do know Iraqi army owns abrams too right?
What secrets? secrets why they suck?
Only your mother can do it))
explain how? Cause, literal combat experience proves otherwise.
Why does the Abrams suck? Compared to what? Drones? Hand held launchers?
Most of what Russia is fielding right now can't do much against an Abrams in a direct frontal face off. If a T-90M met an Abrams head on it only takes 1 penetrating shot from the Abrams 120mm with APFSDS-T to set the Russian's back 3 crew members, and 5 million dollars... Meanwhile the Abrams crew has free tickets to front row seats of the Russian space program as the turret of the T-90M blasts off 30 yards into the sky.
Every armored vehicle in Ukraine on both teams is vulnerable to all attacks from above since virtually ALL tanks have paper thin roof armor.
Other tanks are suffering as much as the Abrams is (The model M1A1 Abrams models Ukraine has received is fundamentally on the same level as the first line of Leopard II's as well as being about the same age with the exception of a 5 year difference between the M1A1 model and first line Leopard II's.)
Russian soldiers aren't stupid. Despite how they are portrayed by media, they are specifically trained, and making use of training to target the weak points of these tanks. They aren't stupid to try to take them head on.
Right now, drones and infantry with anti tank weapons (Like ATGM's) are what's killing tanks, not other tanks (I don't know the statistics of how many tanks were lost against aircraft)
@@343guardian5to RPG 7 they sucks already in Iraq))
@@343guardian5T90 M have external armour and he can survive after 18 hits of RPG (was video about it) and surely shell will destroy that armour firstly and after doesn’t effect armour of turret itself. Also T90 M have anti drone armour and active system against impacts.
for understanding: the drawings of the Abrams tank and all the documentation translated into Russian were at Uralvagonzavod 6 months before it was put into service in the United States.
Reverse engineer an old technology. Well done! :)
The obsession with sticking their noise into everyone’s business never ends
40 year old export tank pattern. They won't learn much.
Abramsa mieli Ruskie już 30 lat temu. Polski wywiad sfabrykował dokumenty, na które USA wysłały Abramsa do Turcji na testy.
Czołg nigdy tam nie dotarł.
Przeładowano go w Grecji na inny statek i znalazł się on w CCCP.
it's a good fairy tale, but nothing is known about it in Russia)))
I am fully support to Russia and I love Putin
Thats a old tank US already got the next thing .
Russian PEOPLE got a lot of Christmas Toys from AMERICA and EUROPEAN UNION
Russian families have a lot of tragedy along with your toys. Very inconsiderate of you to not think of human lives.
well hope your happy with scraps as UA is lying full with it since 2021 ........ and growing . lol
how simple some can think about broken armour which is as old as me !
That tank was 30 yrs old
Like we haven't received the latest models of the T-80, radar systems, surface-to-air missiles, electronic jammers and other late model Russian technology from the Ukrainians as part of the price for their receipt of our tanks?
Show them. Liar
NATO fan boy in emotional free fall 😂😂😂😂😂
@@jakegriffiths590 No, common sense?
@@blueskynet7926 what's common sense?
There is nothing new in the Abrams or Leopard itself that the Russians have not already known for decades. What is worth finding out is capability against their armor and studying various technologies in the tanks to counter them in the field.
Here is the most incredible thing about this... General Norman is telling us that this "MAIN battle tank" was designed in the 70's and 80's to have nearly zero defense against "'top-attack". It was known in the 1940's that tanks were vulnerable to air attack, but 40 years later the US was still developing MAIN battle tanks with no defense against it?
That shows these tanks were not even designed to fight the "last war" - they were clearly designed ONLY to fight non-peer adversaries. Goatherders and farmers with Hiluxes and RPG-7s - not a REAL war against an opponent with a similar level of military power.
Abrams is a relic, what are you talking about 😂😂😂
Russia, why not use the world most advanced tank Armata in that war...
Armata is a firework of dust in the eyes. Yes, it has been developed, but Russia is not the Soviet Union. It has neither the capacity for production nor the strength for new infrastructure (training crews and repairmen, production of spare parts and ammunition, and so on)
Armata has been tested in combat conditions in Ukraine. This is the tank of the future, but there are few of them because they are not mass-produced. And in this war, well-known tanks are needed for large-scale battles, the crews of which do not need to be retrained.
@@solomonkhan7199 You just supplemented me with your objection. For three hundred years now, victories have depended on the economies of states, and the armed forces are only an appendage of industry.
@@Vadim-p1dи что там с экономиками Франции в 1812 г. и в Германии в 1945 г.?????????????
@@alikshpak160 Everything is very bad. The USSR won by all accounts in the race with Nazi Germany. Napoleon lost the race with Britain, have you heard anything about the reasons for the attack on the Russian Empire?
The thing that makes western tanks superior is crew survivability. Getting hit in a western tank might mean you lose it, but you keep the crew. Russian tanks when hit take the crew with them.
It's M1a1 old , Desert Storm I would say! EVERYTHING could be destroyed
M1A1 was used from 1990-2014
@danielpetrucci8952 the marines Had him Till know . Become know a2
Tanks and helicopters are fighting drone and hitting directly while moving artillery war...
I'm not an expert on military equipment but the thought comes to mind that drones have made tanks obsolete much like aircraft carriers made battle ships obsolete in the 40's.
Has the T-14 been deployed yet?
in history the USA did bring always Su technics into their hands, often advanced to theirs, to learn. Of course since the computer /chip times it turned.
But SU/Russia has had not nearly that access even then with more shy spy counter actions.
У меня вопрос, если абрамс лучший танк в мире почему на него установили советскую динамическую защиту контакт-1? Зачем лучшему танку в мире технология 60 летней давности?
Export. Model?
Abrams biggest secret is why it costs so much.
it's a cheeky boy
because of size and its engine mostly. The export versions use basic armor that russia either has already or has something better. The abrams is much larger than russian counterparts and thus it needs a larger engine and more armor for its size. Plus its engine is a jet turbine.
@Waffles-q2s Well, it burns even better than Leopards.
@@reynardus1359 the ammo and not the crew inside so. I rather be in a flaming abrams than in a t80. To be fair T80s dont really catch fire as they tend to EXPLODE more often than not
@@Waffles-q2s t-80 with turbine engine: ok. Russian tanks weighting 80% of usa analogues: ok. Shitty argument pal, go think better
Lt. General Mark Hertling visited some Russian facility long time ago (implied to be in the 90s) and the Russians somehow obtained an M1 Abrams. He suspected that it was from a middle eastern country which already operated one. Based on this and the time, I would guess either Saudi Arabia or Egypt
Beautiful news greetings from Holland. ❤️🇷🇺
Russia has its own impressive Armata, so it wouldn't be fair to compare the M1.
In this war, we've come to understand that the most important thing isn't how well tanks perform. It's how we deal with drone attacks.
We've also come to realize that factors like cost, productivity, and ease of repair are often more crucial than the intricate specs of a weapon.
So far, though repairs arent easy. The american M1 has out performed russian counterparts. Mostly for the fact most strikes dont cause catostrophic damage. T80s practically detonate every time they get hit and its a complete destruction. While many m1s just lose their ammo and can be recovered later ( except for the examples here of course.)
What of the French Leclerc and British Challenger?!
really no need to worry, wont learn much except the Abrams is much heavier and really not suited to terrain in winter, I think the Russian's have enough problems of their own trying to figure out how to stop the Turrets blowing when they get hit.
Because of it Russia developed T90 M )
@@protivliberastov9182 ok thanks
Are you kidding talking that manual gun loading could be subject of reversing engineering instead of auto loading? It’s more likely more secure ammunition stowage will be brought into production let’s say in separate external containers.
Actually... I think the whole concept of an MBT is going away. Tanks are a thing of the past. Think of it this way... do you really need 40 rounds of 120mm ammunition stored in a vehicle that is not likely to last much longer than a few minutes? All they are doing is carrying around the explosives used to destroy them.
What we will see is a new generation of lightly armoured vehicles acting as command and control for fleets of small unmanned combat vehicless. The manned vehicles will stay back while the unmanned vehicles do the direct fighting.
That's the future, not the same technology that was already becoming obsolete the moment man-portable guided missiles were invented.
Meh... just put it out on display or museum.
I need to visit this place
The Tank is 30+ years old and every anti tank missile designed attacks from the top and yet they still have not fixed it.
Viva RUSSIA
M1A1 SA model, not M1E3. Very different tech
Is 17/31 about 2/3?
unlocking what... 80's tech wow
Тут много пишут - типа не узнают ничего нового, устаревшие и тд . Но я так скажу - всегда полезно иметь экземпляры для реальных тестов. Не зря же и американцы скупали десятки Т72 Советских версий в 1990е годы , хотя уже имели Т72 из Восточной Европы и Ирака.
Where are the Challengers?
none have been captured
Old hits and attacks 🎉nato cannot stand a day without crying 🎉❤ Masy'Allah Allahuakbar Permudahkan urusan kami semuanya aamiin 🎉❤
This tank is so old it's like learning the secrets of a early 2000s pentium pc😂
what became of the super secret weapon f16's?....the amazing 50yr old design jet......
What super secret weapon? It just replaces the older Soviet aircraft.
I am not sure they need to copy that heap a 💩. 😂😂
The only thing they will know is what we already let them know. The design, shape and general specs of the abram has been known publicaly for years. Anything they hope to gain isnt there. Our export models dont use the same armor or electronics. What is there, is more or less western design culture that doesnt fit what russia priotitizes
What would they really learn from this? I doubt this is their first time with an abrams
I don't understand the Russians, they themselves said that Western tanks are "garbage" and these tanks do not offer anything new to current tanks such as updating or improvement.
Wow they have Western tech that’s over 30 years old.
I’m shaking.
the question is that the old military technologies of the 30s have remained, there is nothing new, the weapons are from the same years, but the phones are good, although the Chinese are clearly already superior to America in technology, an obvious fact
@ You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, armour packages and fire control systems have advanced greatly since the M1A1 first rolled off the assembly line.
Do you honestly think that the Americans would be sending their latest variants if they knew they were inevitably going to fall into Russian hands?
@@darthtrudeau4907 I am sure that everyone knows everything, it is not necessary to take something broken from the battlefield for this. I can say with absolute certainty that only war can move progress, unfortunately
@@АлександрСередин-д7я Wow you’re dense if you think that the original M1A1’s are as far as American tank tech has reached.
Of course, the Abrams and Leopard 2 tanks will be examined by Russian experts. But I really don't see what they, something that Russian experts don't already know, could find in these tanks?! These are not the first captured Abrams and Leopard 2A6?! Which, to make matters worse, on the battlefield and in a real war proved to be worse than the above-mentioned T-72B3M and T-90M. In fact, in most combat segments, the above-mentioned Russian tanks proved to be better!
More precisely, both the Abrams and Leopard and Challenger 2 proved to be worse than the Russian modernized tanks T-72B3M/T-72B1MS, T-80BVM, and the new T-90M. Also, when comparing these aforementioned Western tanks with the new Chinese tanks on the T-72 tank platform. Or the Czech modernized version of the T-72M4CZ, and with the Polish PT-91... In all the crucial segments for a tank and for a real war and battlefield today, these tanks are better than the Abrams or the Leopard 2, not to mention the Challenger 2 and the T-55 is better than the Challenger 2.
Some of these crucial segments for a tank on a real battlefield and in a real war are:
Speed, maneuverability, agility, logistics, maintenance, maneuverability, effect on the battlefield, the possibility of using the tank as mobile artillery with a range of up to 10 km, crew training, invested and what is gained from the tank on the battlefield, greater range of the gun than 5 km, the possibility firing laser guided missiles... And what is most important is the sustainability of tanks in a real war and on a real battlefield! Where exactly the conflict in Ukraine proved that maintenance and general maintenance means the production of the tank itself and parts for it. When the Leopard 2 and Challenger, as well as Abrams in a real war, are completely unsustainable! So it is not possible to mass-produce these tanks for the first war, due to the low level of production capacity and repair of these tanks in the West as well as the price of that same production, but it is possible to mass-destroy them! And on the battlefield, they did not show any better than Russian tanks, quite the opposite! Also maintaining them in working condition is complicated and very expensive! In all of these mentioned segments when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine, and when a real war is in question! Tanks of Soviet/Russian origin have proven to be much better than Western tanks.
When it comes to the price, procurement, maintenance, repair and modernization of tank tanks. The numbers are simply incredible! And here things are even worse for tanks of Western origin.
We can go even further so that everyone understands. The Russians are overhauling their T-72B from scratch and modernizing it to the T-72B3M variant, the 2022 modernization model, all costing the Russian military less than $500,000. Because we have just confirmed the price of this tank, all with anti-drone protection, at the recently concluded arms fair in Russia, the export price of the T-72B3M in the latest modernization from 2022 is $550,000.
Which means that for one Abrams M1A1 in the modernized version donated to Ukraine, which costs $10 million per piece, we can buy as many as 20 T-72B3M tanks?!
And to make matters worse, each T-72B3M is a significantly better tank in every sense, especially when the performance on the battlefield in Ukraine is better than this version of the Abrams tank, and of course than the Leopard 2 in almost all versions from A4 to A6, the Challenger 2 is not worthy of even a comment in this comparison.
By the way, in this war so far, the T-72B3M has already destroyed at least one Abrams, if not two, and about a month ago a Leopard 2A4. So, on the battlefield in Ukraine, in a real war, the T-72B3M has a significantly better performance on the battlefield than Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2.
Even worse is that the Western media, massively in all mainstream media, the US and NATO media hold the whole of Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, a huge part of Asia, Africa ... Pushing the propaganda narrative that as soon as Western tanks come to Ukraine, they will be "game changers"?! When the Russians see them, they will flee to Siberia in fear, and that these same Western tanks will destroy hundreds of Russian tanks?! Because they are "so much better tanks than Russian ones, because the Russians produce tanks by taking chips from washing machines that were produced in the West, and even when they produce a tank, the new one is already defective"?! However, the war has shown exactly the opposite! That Western 3rd generation tanks are extremely unreliable, especially their opto-electronics, in a real war like the one in Ukraine. And the Ukrainians themselves say so!
I always ask unreasonable people a simple question. Have you ever wondered why China and India, which are the world's military superpowers! Who can buy whatever they want for their army and not ask for the price! Or even copy whatever they want in the Chinese case... Why did these countries decide to buy a license for T-72 or T-90 tanks?! For the simple reason that they are smart people and they know what I already stated in the text. That Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 are unsustainable in a real war, when the production and maintenance of these tanks is a question, because they are too expensive to produce and too complicated and too expensive to maintain and train the crew.... And that on the battlefield you don't get much more from them than T-72 or T-90 tanks, on the contrary! They are less reliable tanks than the Russian T-72/T-90 tanks.
That's great! Everything is absolutely correct! In the Russian segment of the Internet, there are interviews with Russian tank crews who shot down two Abrams tanks in one battle. I have only one question: if Russia gives captured Leopard and Abrams tanks to China, how soon will the Chinese flood the arms market with copies of Leopards and Abrams?
@@solomonkhan7199 I don't believe the Chinese want to copy Abrams and Leopards honestly because if they did, not all of their tanks would be based on Soviet/Russian platforms. I want to say that they have had the opportunity to produce copies of 3rd generation Western tanks before, but they clearly don't want to!
Hey way to go Russia, gonna take a part 1980s technology. I was 20-year-old.
The truth about the M1A1 is that it can be taking out by $2000 dollar drone. WOW It will not be a good weapon only after they are able to put 4 drone motors on it and get it to fly.
I am most certain that the Russians will make massive leaps in weapon advancement and capability, once they discover the cutting edge 1980’s tech behind the M1A1 Abrams🔥🔥
why if Russia says to their people that they have the best stuff, then why do they need our stuff is it because they still use 1970s tank technology
It has been said already many times. There's nothing new to learn. Russian tanks are better overall. American tanks have slightly better electronics and perhaps ergonomics. That's it.
what an amazing analysis, Russia will probably copy the "superior" manual loading mechanism of leopard and abrams
The ¨secret¨ is QUALITY.
I believe they can't believe they built a heavy tank that can't fight in many places in the world. The Abram tank will be hopeless in sub Saharan Africa. It won't be able to move
I saw him in Kazan! healthy and probably expensive...
There are no secrets M1A1 has that Russians are in dire need of knowing. Not the vaunted armor (no DU on these), not the thermals or anything of the sort. M1A1 is a mediocre tank of average design that isn't well thought-out. Abrams itself is unimpressive. Only good thing about it is the kind of explosive material used in the HEAT and HE rounds. Shit, Abrams is an anti-tank gun while Russian tanks are anti-fortification guns. Once they upgrade their ammunition with more phlegmatized explosives, speed up the loading and get the faster reverse gear, it'll be rid of all the issues that can be levelled at the tank. Abrams has nothing that they can learn in terms of technical execution.
Unlock what? Being disappointed? Or having the laugh of their life?
Nie ma niezniszczalnych czołów tylko są źle trafione.
Ze szkolenia LWP (dawne czasy) : pierwszy strzał ...w transmisję. Pytam : co to ?
W gąsiennicę. Aha...
A potem (w unieruchomiony czołg) ile wlezie (do zniszczenia - eksplozcja/pożar).
Poziom wyższy doprowadzić do kotła człgów (Leopard) i zrzucenie na nie lekkiego jądra
(małego ładunku nuklearnego)
The best tank is only as good as its crew.
And when Americans run out of chewing gum they' re done. 😮
Notice how the challenger 2 wasn’t captured 🇬🇧🇬🇧
you do know the m1a1 is the 80s and early 90s model. the m1a2 sep v2 is the modern and most advance version, not to mention the m1a2 has way better armor
Сейчас на Уралвагонзаводе делают трепанацию и Леопарду и Абрамсу
They won't learn much
Big heavy and expensive tanks have no future on the battlefield. No matter how great a tank is, it's very easy to disable it with a drone these days. I think they are not looking for some secret in Abrams, they are just curious and looking for interesting technical solutions. The electronic equipment and its scope and possibilities will also be interesting for them, if it has not completely burned down.
Ukraine is currently the largest supplier of Western arms to Russia.
Ukraine is also the biggest importer of Russian scrap metal
@@kennedy188 Yep. They're receiving trillions of red hot fragments of steel travelling at supersonic speeds! They're gonna be rich!
reverse engineering dinosaurs ? ..... I loved the ridiculous line about how they were "interested" in the manually loaded gun ..... that is the exact reason why the Abrams etc are so big in the first place - you need a 3 man turret ..... which means you need a bigger tank ..... then "Ergonomics" yeah it would be fascinating no doubt for the Russians to see how to fit 3 people into a turret ?
M1A1 is not cutting edge technology- it doesn’t have depleted uranium armor like newer US models all do
true. But when the Chinese copied the C-17 after acquiring all the drawings, they didn't get the remaining 10%. So they basically made some slight changes based on their own needs, what they wanted etc. Doesnt have to be a 100% replica.
yes they just gave the something, so they can excuse the billions they stole from US people to put it in their pockets in order to keep their regime
am gonna go into scrap metal....who helps with collecting ...we divide the reapings...:)) here the price is 0.22 eucents ....iron ...copper silver gold electronics have to do some melting
31 Schlock!
what secrets there is nothing you can do to a tank to hold against modern missiles
900usd fpv drone
These are older models that the US Army doesn’t use anymore…nothing groundbreaking here
thats not the version that they supposed to have ?? wtf with that
I think modern MBT are the least secret things of any modern equipment. The FCS might have some secrecy, but everything else from composites to manufacturing processes is already known to any nation and most is even revealed at trade shows when they pine for buyers. There really wasn't a big breakthrough in composite for decades now, so even if the whole MBT is classified, you can easily speculate what kind of protection is has and what kind of materials it uses, and any nation can easily reproduce those these days. MBTs are slowly but surely becoming less relevant on a modern battlefield. As said, the only actual interesting part for espionage remains the electronics and software.
Even though Russia captured one M1A1 they can't copy all the features in it. American tank in ukrain are modefied I guess. Im from Philippines hope you notice me
No need to copy 70 tons weight monster, it’s can’t go on bridges and stuck in mud and snow)
How the most feared MBT became a lemon.
I think they've unlocked almost every weapon and mod in the game so far.
Such tremendous results 🇷🇺👍..
I don't think that Russian will use those tank to improve their tank. Usually Russia and Western have opposite design mindset (Auto/Manual, Cheap to built vs super expensive to build tech...).
I think the reverse engineering is mostly to see what are the weak point and how to jam the electronics of M1.
The important things they are looking at is the software in the electronics. The problem is that the minute the Russians try to access the software the system will erase the software and turn itself into a brick.