The Differences Between M1 ABRAMS and LEOPARD 2 Battle Tanks
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 мар 2019
- New Spanish Channel! - FTD Facts Espanol:
/ @ftddatos
The Differences Between M1 ABRAMS and LEOPARD 2 Battle Tanks.
► SIMILAR VIDEOS: • 20 Surprising Facts Ab...
► The Differences Between MiG-21 FISHBED and F-16 FIGHTING FALCON: • The Differences Betwee...
► The Differences Between HAL TEJAS and JF-17 Thunder: • The Differences Betwee...
• SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/SubscribeFtdFacts
• SUPPORT US! Become A Channel Member: / @ftdfacts
The Leopard 2 is a main battle tank developed by Krauss-Maffei in the 1970s for the West German Army. The M1 Abrams is a third-generation American main battle tank.
FOLLOW US:
Leroy Kenton: / ftdonline
Dave Walpole: / dave.r.walpole
Facebook: / ftdonline
Twitter: / ftdonline
#FtdFacts #M1Abrams #Leopard2
There are a lot of inaccuracies in there. Leaving the Historical errors aside, like Germany being a major tank Nation in WW1 there are some serious errors in your description of armour and its functionality.
-Chobham armour is not American nor is it German, its British and such they used it first. Both nations received it, Germany later than the US for obvious reasons.
-Chobham armour is in an armour category called composite armour because it is made up of multiple different layers of armour designed to do a different thing so that they, in total achieve better protection.
-Generally speaking, you would differentiate between kinetic and chemical protection.
-Usually, in modern tanks, chemical warheads are defeated with either integrated ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) elements or external elements (The Blocky looking things on the tanks). They work because CH Warheads use a superheated copper jet, so when they hit the ERA, (explosives that are essentially sandwiched between two metal plates), the jet is disrupted, lessening or destroying its capabilities. (I know about tandem warheads)
- Kinetic warheads are more difficult to explain, there are two subtypes of these. There are the earlier APFSDS rounds of the Soviets (They changed them in the 80-90s), which are essentially speaking very hard metal rods flying at 1450m/s. They eat their way into the Armour, consuming themselves in the process. What you do to defeat these is you put very very hard things into your composite armour so the dart breaks apart in your armour and scatter, again, disrupting, lessening or destroying its capabilities. That has a major side effect, the shot armour is essentially "spend" because the ceramics broke up in the hit. NATO (and now Russian) APFSDS use a different approach, you make the metal "disintegrate" on impact so that instead of breaking apart, it turns into dust. This keeps the direction of the projectile intact and makes the penetration of a Warhead strongly correlate to the length of the projectile. There are a lot of maths in there, but the main thing to take away is that modern APFSDS round can largely ignore angled armour and actually benefit from hitting it.
edit: If I knew how defeat the latter one, I'd be the richest man in the world.
- For the reasons stated above, a longer projectile means more penetration, the 105mm had its limits set by that. That is the main reason the Americans adopted the 120mm.
- While Germany received the Chobham armour, nobody knows if they actually use it, or what armour type is used in *either* the Leopard 2 or the Abrams.
- The Arrowhead of the Leopard is designed to help with the whole spend armour thing. The deflection aspect is useless against modern APFSDS rounds because they just disintegrate on an angle.
- The Armour upgrade from the original Abrams M1 was the IPM1 again, the improvement of the spend armour thing. The IPM1 became the M1A1 with the 120mm.
- The exact upgrade of the M1A2 armour upgrade remains secret and is described to be an "armour improvement". For reasons I have explained modern armour is very complicated so without knowing the exact changes made within the armour, it is impossible to tell what the fuck changed in the protection and anyone telling you is lying or had no idea what he is talking about.
- The same thing with the more modern Leopard 2 variants, nobody knows what was upgraded, because they should not know.
- The American 120mm is not a Rheinmetall, its American made with a license.
- Exact top speeds are not known for both tanks, again it is secret.
- Exact ranges of both are not known, secret. However, it is generally accepted that the Leopard has the "better" range thanks to better fuel efficiency. Also, the Leopard can burn its Oil as fuel as a last resort, giving it extra range and making it useless to the enemy when captured.
TL;DR:
Modern armour is very complicated, so without knowing the exact changes made within the armour, it is impossible to tell what the fuck changed in the protection, what changed in the firepower or what changed in mobility and anyone telling you is lying or had no idea what he is talking about. If the tech behind these tanks were so simple that a RUclipsr could explain both of these extraordinary tanks in 13 minutes, they would not charge 6 000 000$ a pop and spend billions in R&D. Comparison of modern in-service tanks is just guess work and as such *carry no merit* at all because everybody can make anything up and nobody can dispute anything. All technologies concerning modern Tanks like the Challenger 2, Leopard 2, T-90, T-14 and the Abrams are CLASSIFIED for very good reasons.
edit: There is a thing anybody can comment on: The Leopard is much more sexy.
More people need to read this!
Wouldn't certain countries have different needs/wants for their MBT as well?
This whole 1v1 tank stuff, to me, is nonsense. There is a tremendous amount of support behind these tanks that is never taken into account.
I agree Germany was not a tank faction in WW1. They never built many tanks in mass production themselves unless if you count the meagre amounts if the A7V produced. America didn’t produce many tanks in WW1 as well. Britain was leading the tank industry teally
@@heated1861 Then France made some breakthroughs between the war and had arguably the best tanks at the start of WW2 they also had more tanks than the Germans. It goes to show you how important training is, because France was steamrolled by a more coordinated and better trained German army. You can have the best tank in the world but if you don't use it correctly it's useless.
@@onenerdvs9639 Yep. France made a big mistake in spreading the tanks all along the front line (Maginot line),so that there was a few tanks covering each section of the line. The Germans being the attackers had the luxury of deciding where they wanted to attack and so could amass all their tanks at concentrated points, thus easily overwhelming the superior French tanks at the places where the Maginot line was actually attacked.
This guy's brain is on airplane mode.
you are funny 😂
No This Guy Brain Is On Traktor Mode
@@ncpdswordshielddivision2240 lol
Click baited by this dude who doesn't know what he is talking about
He sure likes to show himself on camera though, he's a goofy looking dweeb too.
@Joe Blowe bruh I’ve seen you like 11 times and most of them are “hE’s CaNaDiAn”
Ah yes the United States known for their tanks in world war 1
Hmmmmm yes totally
Bruh
*for those who doesn't understand jokes*
(I think this joke is pointing out that the British made the tanks first, *I think* )
"uh trust us guys, they aren't French tanks".
What ww1 US tank?
This guy really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
John Hilton in what way?
@@negativejam2188 I'm at 10s in you want me to begin?
EliteNoob Lol, I recognize most of his mistakes. I just don’t think it hurts the point he’s trying to make that both the abrams and leopard 2 are similar with some pros and cons for each
@@negativejam2188 arent all tanks similar with pros and cons each?:P To be fair i did not watch the rest of the video.
EliteNoob not necessarily. Some tanks truly just outclass others. What I mean are the abrams and leopard 2 are side-grades. Comparable enough to be similar in performance but with slightly different upsides
at 10:40, pretty sure that is a JSDF type 90, not a leo2
youre right. the pics are a type 90
HAD to scroll far to down to see this
Couldnt it be a leo2a4?
@@matejba67 I honestly do not think so.
Type 90 looks similar to Leo2a4 but there are obvious differences like driver sits on the right side on leo2a4 while type90 has its driver sitting on the left.
Also the gunner's optics is on top of the turret and on the left side of the turret on type90, while leo2a4 has its optics in the turret face right next to the gun on the right.
@@-APTX That's true, it's probably not a leo 2a4.
Love how he counts the upgrades from 2A5 to 2A6 and completely forgot about the biggest upgrade.
The change from the Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 to the Rheinmetall 120mm L/55, which was in Fact a lot stronger as it was also the variant of this cannon, to use DM53 APFSDS rounds.
both could use DM53 iirc but because the barrel of the 2A6 is longer so the round had a larger muzzle velocity and in turn much bigger penetration
@@goose_memes But can the Rheinmetall 120 use the hottest APDSFS with which the Abrams is equipped? I have read from some sources that the U.S.-built 120 has a reinforced breach enabling it to withstand higher pressure charges so that the Abrams' 120 can use the hottest German ammo, while the German cannon's breech cannot tolerate the hottest U.S. rounds. "Course there's also the question of the effectiveness of U.S. depleted uranium bolts versus the German tungsten-alloy ones.
@@seandunne1668 The exact opposite is the case; 1st, the US-used l/44 is a licensed copy of Rheinmetall's gun, without any further changes (Rheinmetall itself changed the alloy-composition several times to make the barrels sturdier).
Besides that, the later Rheinmetall ammunition types are overcharged of sorts, creating a way higher interior pressure within the barrel than "traditional" rounds (that goes for basically all that were developed after the leopard's transition to l/55 - which btw also came with yet again a new hardening technique), and can only be used with Leopards safely - other 120-cannons would suffer massive wear 'n tear if they use those. That's also "why" the newer ammo-types by Rheinmetall can't be used sensibly with older Leopard-variants - they fit, and they'd fire off, but they'd ruin the barrel in no time.
Regarding the effectiveness of the projectiles - DU has a greater mass than tungsten, wich gives it an edge when fired at an equal muzzle velocity; it's basically Einstein's E=mc². However, the (way) higher velocity coming from a fully-utilized l/55 over l/44 leads to a significantly greater range and penetration strength even compared to l/44-DU-darts, making the l/55 superior in every aspect; velocity is squared in the equation after all (Leopard 2 A6 upwards has an effective combat range of up to 5km - whereas l/44-DU darts aren't exactly useful beyond 3.5km's; l/44-tungsten, however, loses it's effectiveness after 2-2.5km's already due to their lesser mass compared to DU).
Besides, the l/55 "could" be used with DU-ammo just as well, there's just a political descision in Germany "not" to (this country isn't exactly vast, just about half the size of Texas - yet with a population of 84.4 mil people (the USA, while having a population of 332million (barely 4x as many as Germany) , are ultimately ~27.5x larger. Potentially hazardous effects of DU-utilization can be kept away from the population therefor, a luxury Germany doesn't have).
p.s.: I'm quite confident that the US will, at some point, adopt the l/55 as a new standard for their tank fleet too. The advantages are just too immense.
I NEVER heard of american tanks in WW1...
After reading comments it appears that you do not have a clue what you are talking about...
For the record both tanks produced 1500hp but only one used a turbine.
The US used the French FT-17 and a couple of British designs. Americas first tank engagement was at Saint-Mihiel in 1918.
The Americans used French Renault tanks. No home grown tanks existed, not did the USA have any tank doctrine at all. Pre WWII, it was no better for the Americans.
@@stevenhoman2253 hey, thanks for letting me know.
@@stevenhoman2253 Home-grown tanks existed. Just mostly created by businesses, some were accepted for testing. Though none saw combat.
@@peterson7082 who and what are you replying to?
Dude you got the German flag wrong it is upside down 😄🙄
???
What do you mean?
Fixed
@@DoubleBourbonBaconCheeseBurger are you stupid?
Either his editor messed up or I'm disowning him
Video: There are two countries that have been known for their tanks dating back to WW1.
Me: Easy, Britain and France
Video: Germany and the US
Me: Cries in Mark I and Renault FT
Never forget the German A7V Who was a Complete failure in every single deman and build 20 Times
Clearly a Major Tank power in ww1
I mean 20 tanks dude
never seen so much anywhere
@@terruskaa it wasnt a "failure" get that right. you sir have to read about the tank first before making wrong statements. it was descent tank for the time. it has it problem which the other tanks had too , but in combat he didnt do bad at all. and only 20 , cause it was developed late in the war. the renault was realy a Engineering masterpiece, based on that tank, most tank after was made after that concept. and the mark 1 was for dig fights concepted, in which it does well. but read the artikel about the mark 1 and its crew with what they had to deal with, if i had to choose i rather go in the french or german tank back then
@@amoredtitan6903 it was a Failure
The Tank had a crew of up to 28 men in that small room and often the tanks wer abandoned due to engine problems or Snaoke and gas inside
Uts armour wasnt protecting from direct hits and not even bigger shrapnel from artillery
The machine guns had barely room to moove and could often not uit if the enemy simply stood in a trench
IT WAS a Failure
@@terruskaa Nothing much different than other Tanks at that time, so you have to state that tanks at general were a failure in WW1.
@@potator9327 While tanks in WW1 were absolutely terrible, they were a brilliant success and every nation decided they needed lots more for coming wars. Plagued by issues, sure.
This channel is a waste of time! Some image are wrong and some information are wrong as well!
Okay dont go too hard okay, hes just trying
@@janmleung the thing he should learn is do the homework before create a video ! Not just make shit incorrect information to people !
he also got some informations wrong : the M1 doesnt just use the barrel of the leo 2 but a copied and modified version of the Rheinmetall L44 gun
he also ignored the fact that the leo 2A6 has a newer L55 gun with longer barrel
America didn't do much in terms of tanks in ww1
Neither did Germany.
@@thiesschroder5587 A7V
@@Funcrafter01 20 A7V's built...
@@dernwine still more then American tanks
@@Funcrafter01 err no. The Americans produced 15 3 ton Tanks and got at least 10 six ton tanks to france... so they made at least 25. 5 more than Germany.
For the first time I'm proud of the RUclips comments.
People in here actually ripping into this shlock. I don't even know where to begin but you don't know shit about my old ride.
What do you mean we copied the Leopard 2?
Those are my cousins
Yeah I know, it's almost like he just used the click bait title just to lure whereabos
Yes, both tank come from a common project the MBT-70.
@@juangomezfuentes8825 he is the m1 Abrams btw so he knows all
@@tiffanypeterson5607 First they are called Wehraboos and second the Bundeswehr has nothing to do anymore with the Wehrmacht. It's a fucking new country.
Mate REMAMBER GERMANY KNOW TANKS GOOD
FTD: This is the great Abrams tank
leopard 2A7: im the knife and Abrams is a f*cking butter
Incorrect the m1a2 sepv4 would like correct your position
@@spartanx9293 sepv4? I know nevest version is sepv3
@@slavikr383 nope it's the sepv4
@@spartanx9293 its actually sep v3 or M1a2c because sep v4 is still in the works. In anycase the sep v3 would be able to compete with the leopard 2a7
@@kocant1274 yeah America is developing a new tank to replace the Abrams completely now sooooooooo yeah
The Leopard 2 is one mean freaking war machine
\
\ ==
==============
/
/
@@ncpdswordshielddivision2240 wut
Did you really just say the Abrams was the first tank to use Chobham armour? No. The British invented Chobham and were the first to use it on the challenger 1.THEN they gave the armour composition to America. Britain now use Chobham mark 2 or "Dorchester" armour used on the challenger 2. Most things in this video are wrong anyway. Don't ever do a video like this again.
Chobham isn't a armor. Its the location of the research center that created the armor. Burlington and Dorchester are its names. The _M1_ was the first tank to have Burlington that. Being said Burlington equipped tanks are by and large out of service. With most use only being in the USMC. _M1A1HA's_ and succeeding variants and all _M1A2's_ have HAP. Exported tanks have tungsten inserts.
Nathan Peterson Calling it Chobham is still correct though, it’s a kind of blanket term.
@@peterson7082 doesn't change the fact it's known as Chobham Armor
@@sam8404 Publicly, no it doesn't change that. In being technically correct, which to be honest I end up being a bit of a wise ass about, yes it does matter.
@@peterson7082 didn't say it doesn't matter
Dating back to the first world war?! Wazzock
No just no
Germanys first tank in WW1 was "A7V" - today Germany has the "Leopard 2 A7V"
Brits also had tanks in WW1 - but i doubt that USA had some...
@@Benman2785 nope we did French fts my friend and our shameless ripoff in the form of the m1917
@@spartanx9293 im pretty sure the m1917 is a license built copy
11:52 leopard m1a2?
The ultimate combination:
German Reliability
American Fuel Consumption
British Weapons
*...wait...*
@@randombrit4504 wait germany had reliably? The tiger was famous for breaking down same with panther
@@kocant1274 I know, I was listing all the things the nations are bad at:
German tanks are famously unreliable and overengineered.
American tanks use massive amounts of fuel, and catch fire more easily.
British tanks have firepower that *was* excellent about 5 years before they were deployed.
10:34 that is a Type 90... Shows how much he knows about what he is talking about...
Lmao
Of course, there are more M1s, because the US-Army ist much larger, but the Leopard is used by much more armies. That means more states trust the Leopard2.
And the Marines didn’t want to use the M1 because it doesn’t fit to there amphibious combat tactics but the Leopard2 can drive thru 7 Meters deep water
@T Mac The USMC operates _M1A1's._ Only.
No your wrong other states uses the leopard more because the leopards technology is already exposed unlike the US they do not export these tanks to other states because the armor material use in these tank is still classified
US also tried to destroy their own abrams tank because the tank lost its tracks in the battle on iraq and couldnt move so in order to avoid the capture of these tank they decided to plant explosives inside and outside the tank but when the explosives detonated the tank was still intact and good condition the only thing that was damaged is was the periscope that the gunner uses
Unlike the the leopard it couldnt stand a damage inside the tank
So if where talking survivability US wins
Chaos Aculite
I just meant, that how many tanks are out there isn’t a good rating point.
In the Operation Desert Storm the Marines said, that the Abrams doesn’t fit, with their amphibious battle tactics and used the M60 instead
PLEASE don't watch this channel and think you have actually learned anything because there are so many things that this guy gets wrong or just leaves out! Would you take advise about doing heart surgery from a plumber? No, then don't watch this channel and think you coming away with any real knowledge about military tech!
Also a tank can't' shot at two different targets at the same time. What he is talking about is the commanders independent thermal viewer (CITV). It is what gives the Abrams hunter-killer capability. That means that while the gunner is firing at one tank, the commander can be looking for another enemy tank at the same time. Once the commander has spotted an enemy tank he can automatically slue gun onto the enemy tank once the gunner has destroyed the first tank. Then the process repeats itself. The Abrams was the first tank to ever have the Hunter-Killer capability and has the most advanced thermal. FLIR optics in the world.
Yeah, he lost me at the same point. A fairly shallow treatment of the subject and he mispronounces words (e.g. Chobham is not "Chob-ham" but Chob'm")
-My thougts exactly!
I'm on aviation side of military stuff and I also pleaded to him the same statement that you made here!
I also do not understand why people with no prior knowlege of things insist on doing military videos like this guy does, only by reading but not understandind the meaning of those informations and talk about it with a fake and trained atitude of a confident and knowledged specialist!
I did ask of him not to do videos about fighter planes and stick to what he knows and frankly I'm not surprised that he does other topics that are beyond his capabilitys, like tanks!
He should wear a t-shirt from Jazza(draw with Jazza on You Tube!):
"Obnoxious but consistant!"
And also like a very bad man (from military history) has once said:
"...if you say one lie it will remain a lie...but...if you tell it a million times, that lie becomes the truth!"
This guy strives twords this goal 'cause his videos are lying viewers by not knowing what he's talking about!...and he aint bothered by being wrong easily,repeatedly, constantly and on(at least!) two topics!
PLEASE stop!...
...and(only) then ,if you realy want to do this kind of topics,...
...start reading and...
...learning and...
... talking to profesionals and...
... cross reference the informations and...
... only after all of that...
...resume making videos!
I hope we'll se you(only) then!
Ehhh challenger 2 was the first the have the hunter killer i think
Exacly my thoughts. I am in noo way an expert but even after only using YT to get information about tanks this video comes across soo... amateurish. If thats a word.
Ethan Thomson - And you would be 100% wrong. The Abrams was revolutionary in it's design and technology it implemented at the time it was produced. The Abrams had the Hunter/Killer system in the late 1970's, the Challenger 2 didn't even come out until the late 1990's. Russian tanks are just now getting the hunter/killer capability.
10:40 nice... some unrelated Type 90 armour
Do I think one is better than the other? Yes. The Leopard 2 is better. As a Challenger 2 crewman, I worked alongside other countries and got real insight into allied platforms when working with other countries and indeed have been all over and inside them and seen them do their thing. Both are fine pieces of machinery but the Leopard 2A6s and especially 2A6Es that I've worked with were more ergonomic, moved across the ground better and just seemed better designed all round albeit not by a huge margin. They use a 55 calibre length gun over the US 44 calibre length gun, the Abrams M256 being a license built version of the Rhinemetall L44. My biggest bug bear with the Abrams is the power pack. Yes it's quiet but the thermal signature is monstrous and the thing sucks almost as much fuel sitting still as it does moving full chat. Also the roof armour on the Abrams is terrifying. It's always going to be the thinnest armour on a tank but fuck me, its wafer thin, even the crews were like "yeah this is alot thinner than y'alls".
Out of all the other tanks I've worked with in my time the Spanish Leopardo 2A6E was my favourite and I'd have traded my Chally on the spot for it. Next would be the German Leopard 2A6 and then the M1A2 would be the 3rd. They beat out alot of different tanks from various countries, the French Leclerc narrowly misses out on the podium because as cool and nifty as it was, I don't rate having a 3 man crew.
That isn’t true about the idling. But maybe compared to other tanks it sucks fuel when idling. It definitely doesn’t use as much when idling compared to driving. Been in army logistic for a while.
Germany is the china of Europe. All their products are made to breakdown and they come with a tag plate "Unreliable".
Of course, internet trolls will always choose su-35 over f-22 and even gripen over f-22. It all comes from deep seeded jealousy.
Very interesting comment, thanks for sharing your experience.
@@raxit1337 no worries. I should point out that when I said "moved across the ground easier" I meant, it accelerated quicker. Challenger 2 is definitely the most stable of the Western MBTs as it's hydrogas suspension allows it to glide effortlessly. I also do believe that Challenger 2 is better protected in most areas.
The Leopard 2 is however an incredibly ergonomic tank design and easily the best bang for your buck in the MBT market.
Witch leo2 do You mean? There are up to 10versions of the leo2. So You Need to Chose One of them if You want have a clear result.
Abrams has several veriants too, such as the early 105mm ones and how the original M1A1 was an IPM1 with a 120mm and did not yet have the depleted uranium armour package, as well as export versions!
*NOW UPGRADE THE HULL ARMOUR IT HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE ORIGINAL M1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@sniperstg2 they don't have the Dame turret a2 and a1 have a Shorter turret the a3 and a4 and the a4 allso has a wider turret the the a3 so its Not the same turret. And if You say it like that You Could say a1 to the a7 because the a7s turret has the same Shape then the One of the a4 but withe additional Armor on the front and the Side of the turret.
@@sniperstg2 yep :D
@@schattenpelzttd7123 Not only on the turret.
@@HanSolo__ i know but we were talking about the turret
So, you're calling a British WW1 tank american now?
Before you watch this video just see 10:36 to see how much this guy knows what hes talking about
Type 90 lol
10:33 are u sure that leopard tank??.. Pls double check you video before upload man🙂. That type 90 lmao😁
Same armor array though
No this is the Leopard 2
BLACKBEARD just to let you know, type 90 and leopard 2 look almost the same, but look closer and you’ll see it
@@kibalover8934 no, it's not. That's Type 90 as op said.
@@theScottishKoala would like to see the data for that claim.
They looks similar because they're based of the same vehicle, MBT-70
Similar 🤨? They don't look similar at all.
That only refers to the Hull design.
A glaring omission that he doesn't realise
Patrick P No. Similar in attributes such as back engine; shells at the back of te turret; 4 man crew; wheel base/width.
MBT or KPZ 70
This man must've never heard of the kpz/mbt-70 project
The Abrams has a battle over rive for the gas turbine engine that can produce 2300 hp. This is used only in an emergency and can reach speeds of 70 mph. The latest variant of the Abrams M1A2C or SEP V3 is very good with the Trophy APS and numerous other upgrades. The Leopard 2A7 definitely has its advantages over the Abrams, but both countries are Allies. When tanks are this close it comes down to tactics and training of the crew. Hopefully, in the future, we never find out on the battlefield.
Hi! I’m from the future where both these tanks are now being sent to Ukraine to fight Russians. As of today it will be awhile before they arrive so hopefully someone from the future will come to comment on how well they did.
@@James7995 I'm from the future too. Germany is reluctant to send the paper tiger leopard2 but almighty America made Germany to give Ukraine the tanks. Paper tiger becomes an embarrassment and a humiliation for Germany and europe. At last mighty America is forced to send their Abrams tanks. Although all european nation are too poor and broke to even maintain even 10 fleets of Abrams. America decides to finance its maintenance too.
@@alucardbalmond3480 american exceptionalism at work...
The leopard is superior.
Honestly when it comes to these tanks its not about specs or their power on the battlefield.. They will both do their purpose equally the same, but what it really comes down is the production costs, production capacity, maintance costs and the availability of those parts.
I knew this dude had no idea what he is talking about when he pronounced Rheinmetall incorrectly lol
The British was the first with chobbam armour
Yeah its litterly british armour lol
Håkon true!
And the Americans only had the chobham armor on the m1 abrams, the m1ip onwards used American designed armor. Chobam armor becomes more effective when it's angled and with a very flat turret like the abrams it loses the effectiveness it has on tanks like the merkava or challenger.
The Challenger 2 had the hunter killer commander optics first too
@Peter J Mallia the merkava is the most survivable
he didn't even specify what mod of each tank he is talking about smh
This video is when you have to do a project for school about a subject you don't know anything about
at the Leopard 2 the complete engine / gear block can be change within 15 minutes from two or three persons on the field.
How long do you need for the change of the gas turbine from the Abrams?
Probably around the same time, it's called power pack for reason.
@@Ally5141 nope - its more of a 2h job on M1 Abrams
Both tanks have advantages and disadvantages. But there are destroyed Leopard 2's in Syria and destroyed Abrams in Yemen so...
@@chaosXP3RT I dont know about the Abrams in Yemen (If it was used by the US itself or by the Yemeni (Or Yemenite?) soldiers) But about the Leopard in Syria, that is more because the Turks used it wrong. As in more as a SPG, on a hill top with no infantry support
@@Danspy501st The US has no troops in Yemen. It's mostly the Saudi Arabian military that is operating Abrams on Yemen. (I believe they are called Yemeni, without Googling it)
I am a fan of both tanks , but being European i have to give the edge to the Leopard 2 aspecially the 2a6 is amazing
It’s the better tank pretty simple
……and the Leopard has been proven which battle/battles!?
@@ronpayne4505 canada has had many battles with it, seems to come out rather favourably, to say its better than the abrams is... idk, the most important thing nowadays is gun and optics and they're both overkill for current contemporaries, the reality is, they're both just great tanks that do the job
@@ronpayne4505 and the M1 has been proven in which battle.. gulf war hmm against a bunch of illiterates and old tanks..
This man says “decimal” instead of “point” ( eight *decimal* five) and (1 *times* 120mm gun) instead of (1 120mm gun)
and EM KAY
instead of MK.
Just the first picture is completely wrong the m1 abrams is a tank made in the 1970s the leopard 2a5 is a recent MBT so there is no way the m1 is copying the leopard. Plus keep in mind we are comparing a leopard 2a5 which is modern and he’s comparing a tank from the 70s to it. If you think about it the us army had a modern tank in the 70s while everyone else is just now catching up.
The first few minutes are interesting and factual. After that this video drifts into a mess of uninformed nonsense and nationalistic idiocy.
Welcome to America
10:25 "approximately 10288"
Sounds pretty precise to me.
The comment about Switzerland was ignorant. Switzerland has a militia system and military service is compulsory. Soldiers (and therefore also the units they are assigned to + their gear) constantly alternate between civilian life and military service. There's always a constant rotation of people moving into the barracks and getting their gear (e.g. tanks) out of the depots, and people being finished with their service for this year, returning their gear to the depots and going back to their civilian lives. _Some_ military gear like tanks might be in storage because the unit they belong to is not on duty at the moment. But that does not mean that "Switzerland really has no tanks", there will definitely be other active units with the same gear around somewhere.
Who cares, Swiss army is a trash. They can't do shit: no missiles, no modern AA systems, no modern planes(only ancient f-18), no nuclear weapon, few old tanks and bunch of degenerates who believes that they are a real army.
@@AlexA-ln4pj The swiss don't need an army . Switzerland has always been neutral. Also it has the best quality of living along with the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries.
@@AlexA-ln4pj 90% of the Swiss owns guns since they are legal there.
@@AlexA-ln4pj LOL :) Very ignorant and misinformed views there and wrong on every count.
C'mon boys, Swiss military is trash, you can't deny that.
Chobam armor is basicly composite armor and the first production tank to ever use it was the t64
They are like brothers because they are brothers. It's the same tank with different upgrades made by individual countries based on their need.
Both tanks are good but i have to go with leo2
I pries would too. But Leo doesn't have the same materials of armour as the m1. The m1 has better armour and still has room for the cheese wedge .
For that reason I haft to go with abrams.
I’m taking the T-14 Armata or maybe the T-90MS Tagil if there is none
But the Leo or Abrams? Protection is the abrams, gun is the Leo.
@@dominicviner6619 better armour? Are you serious? The turret of the 2a5 and especially the 2a7 is COMPLETELY IMPENETRABLE by the abrams and its hull (2a7) cannot be penned too (only the lower plate at less than 500 metres). The abrams has 640 mm of pen on apdsfs while the effective thickness of the leos turret is 900-1000 mm kinetic and 1800-2000 chemical and the hull of the 2a7 is 630-650 mm kinetic and 1300 chemical. The leo with the dm63 or dm73 pushes 800-980mm of pen respectively which can lol pen the abram's hull at 4.5 km away and even the depleted uranium turret at 1.8-2.1 km away. The armour is better on the leo its not even close. Also note that the front half part of the side of the leos turret is also impenetrable at 700mm kinetic protection.
@@stathispapadopoulos7926
Dude stop you don't know real armour values cyz no one does. The amount of space in the crew caparpment and surface area of the tank l, the Leo has around 150mm less room. Which is why there's the cheese wedge to make up for that.
Also the materials in German armour is dumbed down. All nato nations use basically the same armour
There's this British/Swedish design that some country's are going off upgrade versions of that or that version.
The brits chally. And Swedish Leo are suppose to have the best quality armour
This isn't war thunder. 2500 mm protection isn't enough in real life. Cux in real life rpgs can pen 3000mm of steel. Just think of the more effective weapons
The leo armour is much stronger then what you said.
Both are good tanks but Abrams still got room for a cheese wedge.
There's a reason why the Germans do it
Don't sit there and try to tell me that I don't even think real tankers know.
Leo pen an Abrams hull? Have you even seen that happen.
They use basically the same gun with the same rounds. And it's reported an Abrams can't kill an Abrams lol
The only chance of a pen on any of these mbts. Are probably from the back or sides, top or bottom.
You don't know anything this is war thunder
Lenka Utsugi it’s the leo2a5 you have to add the a5 or a6 because they’re a lot of them
I love how the thumbnail says “SMALLER” like that’s a bad thing
I served on an M1a1 (Heavy) Abrams tank, while I was in Germany. We were issued the brand new and M1A1, and just before Desert storm kicked off, we were re-issued the M1A1 (Heavy) Depleted Uranium. The tank was so heavy, we weren't allowed to drive it on paved roads. If we were to go somewhere we had to either rail head or flat bed. Awesome tank, accurate, and fast. Being the gunner, it was hard to miss anything...unless your bore sight was off. A great thing about the tank was you could field bore sight (find the corner of a building or something, and line up your sights) boom borsighted.
Hope you didn't kill anyone.
@@patrickwarren2831 That be the same as saying, "hope you didn't hunt down those wolves in the backyard that are going to kill you if you don't kill them first"
@@captainfighter7666 it’s by God bizarre how they can convince stupid people that an enemy 7000 miles away is a threat. They have to travel for days to fight these mean old terrorists that always seem to live above huge oil reserves. The stupidity is astounding. War is a Racket~ General Smedley Butler
Major disadvantage for the abrams is the weight. Slows it down and makes it vulnerable to getting bogged down
@@randomassname445 Also the noise, thing is fucking loud.
An advantage of the leopard that is very often overlooked is they way they have a powerpack, in the form that the whole engine assembly can be lifted out of the tank, and be replaced within around 20 minutes, where I don't know if the Abrams have the same feature.
Also from the footage I have seen, then the leopard have an acceleration that is much higher than the Abrams, which means when it works with a hillside, it will be exposed for a smaller amount of time.
The Abrams powerpack operates similarly. Most NATO tan's have modular/ easily removable powerpacks.
On paper the _M1's_ acceleration is considerably better when already moving.
@@peterson7082 No, the engine of the M1 is not easy to remove and requires very sepcific infrastructure to replace. And hours to install if not a day.
@@randomassname445 compared to what exactly?
It does you can pull the whole pack out in one piece which is the engine and transmission together. I’ve seen it done. It can be done in a few hours. I literally worked in an amour brigade. I’ve seen it done with my own eyes.
The Turkish Leopard tanks were destroyed by the Kurds in Syria.
How have the US Army's Abrams fared?
You do know that the Abrams and Leopard originate from a joint German-American venture that spilt into two paths but both countries took adaptions from each other. The Abrams and Leopards stem from a common forefather.
The MBT 70.
The MBT70 for the Leopard 2, the Abrams was a white paper design because the MBT-70 and XM803 were too expensive for US Army to purchase. The XM1 started out as a clear sheet design that had to meet a certain price number. There is some misconception about that, but almost nothing from the MBT-70 and XM803 came over to the XM1. But lessons learned from them informed the choices.
@@ThumperE23 the XM1 had specifications drawn up with clear references to the MBT70 program, the MBT70 shaped design requirements for tanks for both nations, the leopard 2 was also a ground up design, so was the leopard 1, but to say they'd be the same tanks without the lessons learned from the MBT70 would be foolish.
The German version of the mbt 70 was called the kpz 70
Kpfz 70*
@@SodziausPilietis kpz is right
Theres no version lol, it's only the name difference
Unless you mean the version with an RH202 20mm
Same thing it essentially means fighting armor 70
@@spartanx9293 nah it doesn't mean that
It means "main battle tank 70" or "kampfpanzer 70"
Both got a german gun ^^
And a fine gun it is
It sports the old Mauser
the M1 Abrams isn't smaller as the Leopard 2. The Leopard 2 A6 and all later versions are just longer, because of the longer RH-120 L/55 Main Gun. There is a picture that shows that the Abrams is a bit larger as the Leopard 2 (A4)
You forgot the .50cal on the Abrams. Also, idk where your range stats are from but the Leo 2E does 500km
Leo. 2E is probably the most outstanding version, it shouldn´t really be taken into consideration if you only say "Leo. 2 vs M1 Abrams"
I am the fifth.. 🙄. Leopard looks greater..
Well even if looks did matter 😂... maybe I'm biased but my Abrams looks sexy
Yes and i never saw a m1 with an other camo Leo has much different camos
@@xxx6797 As far as I know, the M1 has 4 patterns. right off the assembly line grey, desert tan, woodland camo and green
@@Callsign_Prophet I think the Abrams looks and sounds badass and I am a German. I think the Abrams looks even better in the woodland camo though.
Woodland is by far the best camo. The Abrams is so badass!
Yeah I remember American WWI tanks, they were invisible, make no sounds, neither damage....some people say that they were not even there !!!
Actually the 2a5 the wedge was made for what you said but it was made more to withstand atgms and because of the angles it Actually stops Sabots a lot better because it shatters them
Apart from that the leopard has proved to be a lot better than the abrams in a lot of ways
10:42 that is not a leopard. Type 90 of Japan if I am not mistaken.
You're right. Big giveaway is the turret hatches. You can also tell its nationality by looking at the smoke launchers, which look the same as they did back on the Type 61.
It IS a type-90. As 1 guy said, this channel is nothing but misleading information. Even his thumbnail is very wrong lmao
You can also can tell by the armor around the gun barrel
so the wedge isn't for deflection but causes kinetic penetrators to change in direction. got it! glad you made that clear.
No, the wedge is to de-stabalize incomming sabots.
Basically the sabot goes in and when hitting the main armore it begins to shake, but because the end of the rod is still stuck in the wedge it will start to destroy itself because the energy the rod releases can´t escape.
I like the Revolution model of the leopard. Lots of extra options.. The Leopard 2 pointed front turret armor is mostly just empty space. It also has another set of angled plate. The Abrams is currently being tested with active armor to damage incoming missile warheads.One system being tested is the Israeli Trophy system. And they are testing with extra ballast. They may be thinking of adding more armor to the turret. The commander's independent sight gives him the chance to find targets and it can be passed electronically to the gunner. Makes targeting much faster. The Commander looks for the targets and tells the gunner which targets to shoot first. While the gunner is shooting at the designated target the commander can continue looking for and designating targets. The commander can also aim the gun himself and fire. The gun only fires at one target at a time. But they can both aim or designate targets at the same time. The two integrated sights, commander and gunner can find and fire targets very rapidly. The gunner has less field of view. Mainly where the turret is pointed. The commander can quickly cover a wider view. Identify targets and prioritize targets. The gunner shoots where he is told to. When not firing the Gunner can use a wider view in front of the turret. The commander can look in any direction without moving the turret. These tanks can go very fast off road except for very rough terrain.
The m1 abrams and leopard 2 were derived from a joint USA/west german tank program called the MBT-70.
plz make a video pakistani Alkhalid main battle tank and indian main battle tank arjun
Both are crap
@@sirlordhenrymortimer6620 like u
@@vickysingson3802 try harder lammer
@@sirlordhenrymortimer6620 what proof you got? None I presume. Stop being such a shit and at least appreciate the hard work required to build anything. Lucky i don't know your nation or else I'd rip your history and pride in two.
@@adisura9904 hehehe.... take it easy fucktard. I would knock you out blue ,if you dare to fuck around with me. I am from Britain and our products are top notch.
Our army will smoke India and Pakistan out of existence
The leopard 2 and M1 Abrams were developed mostly together, with a lot of communication
@Vince German electronics were almost entirely US built
@@oco8783 american cannons are entirely german made, as are all american diesel engines.... whats your point?
@@oco8783 Actually US designed, but German built. And no there wasn't a lot of communications because the Germans wanted to protect proprietary info.
The Chobham armour was a British development and was first tested in the context of the development of a British prototype vehicle, the FV4211, the Abrams was the the first in pre-series build. The gun is the Rheinmetall Rh-120.
FTD Facts has lost any credibility with me. Inaccuracies abound.
10:33 hm... nice Leopar - ...... nice Type-90...
Im going to sum up how I feel about this in as few words as possible ready. This video was like 50 consecutive punches to the face I don't know were you got you're research but almost everything you said was a miss by at least 10 miles and it hurts it physically hurts me.
Hard physics: there are reasons that the standard applications for a 13mm bolt are virtually identical to a 1/2" bolt (i.e. strength of materials), 14mm vs. 9/16", 25mm vs. 1", etc.
The general similarities between Leo2 and M-1 simply indicates that both sides came to the same (or similar) conclusions. The Rheinmetall 12cm smoothbore was the best choice.
(1500 h.p. Turbine engine vs. 1500 h.p. I.C.E. diesel, notwithstanding)
Leopard 2 is on par with an Abrams it would be an even fight
You forgot the M2 .50 caliber heavy machine gun mounted on the Abrams.
Carlos Luaces *HOW COULD HEL!!*
Pintle mounted and not very useful.
Not on the newer tanks. Its mounted on a CROW and is controlled from inside the turret.
Holy shit a video about the Abrams tank that doesn't use a robotic voice!!!!
Shame the guy knows absolutely nothing correct about it. In the first five minutes he makes enough mistakes that if Niccolas "The Chieftain" Morran sees it he'd probably be sobbing in a corner!
@@FtdFacts For a starter, the mere notion that America and Germany had much of an impact on armoured warfare in WW1 is laughable at best. With the US not possessing any locally made tanks until the interwar period. Germany built a handful of tanks at best, but wasn't as impactful as the British and French. Even at the start of WW2 America's ONLY impact on armour at the start is the ability to mass produce decent tanks. (Though their early war armour is laughable). Secondly, you misinterpreted the purpose of the MBT-70 program in it's near entirety, having been a joint development by US and Germany long before the Leopard 2 and Abrams prototypes were conceived. There is no way to consider he MBT-70 a competitor to the current Leopard 2 as there's a huge gap of time between them.
Any others I cannot name because A) it has been a long time since watching
B) I stopped watching after 3 minutes because if your opening was so inaccurate the rest of the video is of no use to anyone. Someone could learn more from a half written wikipedia article than this video.
@@FtdFacts in fact. You lie or are ignorant of the numerous corrections in your comment section. You don't even have to scroll down that far to find a comment that corrects your incorrect knowledge of composite armour such as Chobham (a BRITISH concoction.)
Leopard 2 armor is thicker, Abrams armor is tougher, what they have in common is they both equipped with thermal and night vision imaging, laser range finders and they're both have the same L/44 smoothbore gun until the Leopard 2A6 vrariant
Interesting assessment. Thanks!
Abrams is a weapon which restrict russian not to fight with US allies
🤔no only nukes
Dumb US weapons 😂😂😂😂 not abrams 😂😂
@@reddevil4817 open your mouth as long as you can😀😉
@@robertwale8479 oh whole world already seen in Syria tomahawk and this matter f16. putin cant stop laughing on DUMB US weapons after this matter 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@robertwale8479 the small country vietnam kicked your coward USA s ass in vietnam war 😎😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
4:30 not realy the russian t64a was the first MBT to use Composite armor
Yes, and even if you’re being specific to the Chobham package, the Challenger 1 beats out the Abrams
T95e1 also kinda used it but not really
Well let's clarify this. Nobody went out and copied anybody. The US and Germany were collaborating through the 60s on a Maine battle tank (MBT-70) which ultimately fell through. The two countries ultimately went with their own designs which ended with the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2. Both entered service in 1979. Both borrowed research from the previous MBT-70 project.
Germany and the US are known for their tank support during WW1??? Excuse me?
Germany had like a few A7Vs and the US used french models as they had not yet designed one of their own.
I think Leopard 2A-7+ is better than M-1 Abrams 2
I agree leapords are my favorite tanks all the varieties especially the 2a4 series if i am right
Burger shot well ya there much newer
@@jarheadmstr not really
That project is in development as far as I know so how can claim such a thing??
“There are more abrams than leopard 2” literally means nothing he’s basically saying that because there are more abrams it is better which in that case I guess the ww2 t34 is the best tank as there have been 50000 produced of course that is not true the point is the leopard 2a5 is a better tank at everything he just loves America
As an American I can agree with you 75%
The Abrams was the most SUCCESSFUL tank, not the best tank
*but* the Abrams still has a fighting chance against any modern MBT *yet* considering the leopard 2a8/3 being released to the German military, that fighting chance will probably be gone soon, hence the M1A3 being made
@@politicallyinaccuratetoast4757 hundred percent the Abrams is one of the best mbt and has seen the most combat but it is not the best
Not better at everything
what I don't understand is how this man got 1,09million subscribers 🤪
Maybe his friends from India xD
G'day from OZ, Australia had to choose between these two tanks only a few years ago to replace our Leopard 1 tanks. Brand new Leopard 2 @ $6 mil each or reworked Abrams @ $2.3 mil each. You guessed it, we chose the used Abrams.
7:01 We don't call 'deflect' but 'ricochet'
~ war thunder player
Winnipeg airshow 2000 I saw a Leopard 2 hit a 10 ft. burm at full speed and it flew 40-50 feet, landing lightly still at full speed. Impressive to say the least.
Ever seen an abrams get hit by an eid which looked like it had a 2000lb explosive mass hidden beneath the road and it flew around 20-25 feet in the air and still came out running like it was nothing? Probably stunned the crew tho
@@_spooT all AFVs have protection against things like that (fe.: chairs with buffers), thus the crew will not get hurt or stunned
@@mememetal6631 Probably still stunned, just not as hard as without protection
The Brits developed and were the first to use chobham armour ( challenger 1). This was improved armour from the Chieftains Stillbrew armour. The wedge shape on the L2A5 is a specific hollow depth. Slightly longer than a APFSDS round. Causing the arrow projectile to tumble inside and break up on the main armour shell.
considering that Challenger 1 entered service in 83, while M1 abrams entered service in 81 and leopard 2 in 78.... no the UK was not the first to use Chobham style armor.
they were quite late to the game
Developed by Brits. Americans used it first.
there is another difference not mentioned in the video:
due to the evolution of armor the nato sabot rounds where questioned for the abilitys against most modern armortypes.
USA solved the problem by introducing depleted uranium rod rounds to improve impact energy and penetration.
germany was hesitant and decided to not use depeted uranium for several reasons, instead they decided to solve the problem by increasing the projectile velocity by introducing the 55 caliberlength barrel( instead of the 44 lengls formaly used by both leo and abrams)
they both reached similar performance with the US du-dart and the german tungsten-dart through a longer barrel.
Can confirm they go faster than 68km/h lol
Leopard 2 A7V goes 73km/h ;)
Interesting
Yooo love ur vids. Just about to head to boot camp in the states.
The abrams has 1 big disadvantage. Its a big, giant unmissable heat signature
Excellent comparison..👍🏼
The USA always focuses on aircraft, naval craft and missiles more than on tanks. Still, that's a very good tank -- and the soldiers who use it have actual experience.
So does the crew of Leopard tanks.
@@munkebo96 there’s not German Leopard two drivers fighting insurgents in the Middle East lol
@@ICECAPPEDSKY The Leopard 2 is not only used by Germans lol.
@@munkebo96 the German crews are better than anyone else they exported the Leo twos to in the Middle East lol
@@ICECAPPEDSKY i highly doubt there's much of a difference between the quality of German, Canadian, Dutch and Danish crews.
Both tanks were derived from a joint program MBT 70 , they went their separate ways during development, I recommend the Osprey series of books if your into this sort of thing,
A lot of outdated information, the MBT70 didn't effect the design of Abrams. The M1 was a white paper no gold plated design. The only thing MBT70 contrubited was don't make it cost as much per unit.
@@ThumperE23 the MBT70 proved and disproved a LOT of concepts lol, it shaped the abrams,
the mbt70 proved that you can't put every crew member in the turret basket for protection because the driver will get sick,
it proved that you don't need a 20 MM cannon for a tank, the ammunition becomes a hassle and manning it takes away too much focus from the commander,
it proved that composite armour was the future and pioneered many production methods for composite armour.
Even america's modular gun system was disproved, the 152 mm low pressure gun was supposed to serve for all tanks, m551 actually saw service with it which was a disaster, the MBT70 proved beforehand that you shouldn't use it as a main gun system, and you shouldn't rely solely on gun based ATGM's to provide your AT capability.
the MBT70 was the most revolutionary tank ever that never saw production and thank god for that.
hmm Forgets about TUSK variant of M1 series also forgets about Ma Deuce on a flex mount... never forget Ma Deuce
yep. the M1 was designed to be a Main Battle Tank. meaning it will need to be able to effectively suppress as well as destroy enemy positions
2 target at once is called Hunter Killer, a system developed in the 70's and implemented in older generations tanks already like the French AMX30.
The new version proposed after the fusion of Krauss Maffei and Nexter is the chassis of the leopard 2 with the french turet of the leclerc, betetr armor of the turret, 5 tons less in weight, one crew less with an autoloader and a rapid fire gun (one shots every 5 second and in the move) and a 52 caliber lengh gun.
Both M1 and L2 are developed from the same base so it looks like the same with similar specs.
M1 has been sold only to countrys that ad military US aid like egypt of customer like saudia arabia that are US buyers.
leopard 2 has been sold to many independant countries in the world.
You can also talk about the engine of the M1, pretol eating and witch has such a big thermali sight wile the diesel engine of the leo 2 is a lot more stealth. When looking in thermal you can see a M1 and shoot at it from the max range of your sight.
it need also a separate logistic for its petrol while all the army has gone diesel.
@Brenton Lewis Well it still use a turbine today and have a huge thermal signature, while the leopard 2 has not it nor the acceleration. france has a superchaged diesel witch has the advantage of acceleration and low thermal signature.
@@inwedavid6919 leclerc was a update due to the char futur 4 not being a good choice
Could u compare leclerc vs British challenger
Leopard 2 A7V range is 550km on road and 250km cross-country
Leopard 2 A7V max speed on road is 73km/h
about which tank is better based on sales: M1 Abrams is sold to 6 non-domestic countries while Leopard 2 is sold to 17 non-domestic countries (nearly 3x)
fun fact: first german tank in WW1 was called "A7V" - an now we have "Leopard 2 A7V" ;)
ps Leopard A8 will have active armor protection
Well, you're missing two important facts: 1) The gas turbine engine of the Abrams was selected, because it was assumed, it would be used to fight the Sovjets in Germany; when the Abrams was sent to Iraq, they got a lot of problems due to the sand clogging up its air filters. 2) The Leopard II might have problems with the placement of its ammunition. Turkey lost several Leopard IIs in Northern Syria, there are pictures of them with blown out turrets. Of course, Rheinmetall would deny that this is a design flaw, so this is difficult to figure out.
in turkye where older models l2 and the used the tank in urban whitout infrantrie suport
There are less M1 Abrams used by chucklefucks who drive unsupported into urban territory. So there's that. I would consider the combat history of Nordbat 2 a better example of how to use Leopards properly.
M1 Abrams and Leopard 2, were results of the U.S.A. and German Co. Project MBT 70 U.S. or Kampfpanzer 70 GER..The Project was cancelled due to different opinions in details, germany wanted a 120mm, the US wanted a 152mm gun/launcher for example.. thats why they are quite similar. The successors were developed out of this Project.
US tanks in World war 1? Where did you get that from? xD
Simply more Abrams being build does not mean that they are better... Germany has way stricter government control over armament exports... 🤔 Just think about the discussion in Germany whether Turkey as a Nato ally gets Leopard upgrades or not
Inaccuracies aside that footage at 0:20 of a tank drifting around a corner is glorious.