This tank has little secrets that nobody will ever know about. Information that is even spoon-feed to us crew and kept within the crew. Trust me when I say, there is no other tank like the Abrams. If the crew wants you dead, you will be...and never see it coming. Best job I ever had!
@@invincible4702 After watching the Russian military struggle in Ukraine, the entire world now knows that it's a paper tiger. It's now very, very difficult to take it seriously.
The gas turbine engines on board are absolutely the best dammed turbine blades that money can buy ! I know , I worked in the manufacturing plant for 16 years in Toronto , Canada and handled over 1 million gas turbine blades for that engine program . That's all we made were military gas turbine blades . The engine program was called the AGT 1500 . As each shipment was ready , they were sent to our customer "The Textron/Lycoming Aircraft Company" . The turbine blades for the AGT1500 were made of a certain grade of Stainless Steel , best God dammed turbine blades in the world ! Other engine programs for other customers were MTU , Rolls Royce , General Electric , SNECMA , Pratt & Whitney , Garrett , Airesearch , Rocketdyne ; none of these used stainless steel turbine blades except for the AGT 1500 . I can still picture them vividly in my mind . Last I heard the US government had stock piled about 7000 finished AGT1500 engines in a US warehouse .
Thank you for the defense of America. This turbine is so much more power i think and much greater reliability than even a 1,500 hundred horsepower diesel engine.
General Electric makes a outstanding turbine....in fact I personally witnessed a fighting falcon engine in full afterburner in a test facility best jet in the world.
As a 50 year recently retired precision toolmaker who always worked in a job shop, hiw do you stay sane making the same damn part all day every day? Sounds like hell to me.
@@fubartotale3389 The list I gave is 8 companies long . Each customers parts were being worked on all over the plant . It's not one part being worked on for 16 years . Each customer had 5 to 15 different part numbers as well as experimental parts . The highest qty we produced was for MTU of Germany , they were for the RB 199 engine program that went into the standard NATO jet fighter called the Panavia Toronado .
I was escort to two Hungarian General Officers on a visit to the Lima Army Tank Plant. These officers had been armor officers in the Hungarian Army trained on Soviet tank designs and they thought very highly of Russian equipment. The plant tour was a briefing on the M-1 and then a tour of the facility that was from raw material to driving a tank off the assembly line. We then took them to live fire, trained them and let them crew a tank. WOW, did they change their tune, They described their experience as "Star Wars".
@@nealburns8815 In many instances, Officers were prohibited to drive vehicles. 82d Airborne had such policies when I was first with them. The only way I had a military drivers license was because I was a company motor officer and had to conduct test drives. Both Hungarian General Officers had been enlisted at one time and crewed AFVs..
@@nealburns8815 - You just jump in and drive. I drove a Bradley during the first Gulf War and stayed behind to load the armor onto ships afterward. I drove every vehicle in the arsenal without training.
The leo has never proved itself in combat as far as i know. Until now it has only been a plaything in germany by the bundeswehr. US army has gathered valuable combat information in the last 2 decades that have been incorporated in the last abrams updates. Let’s see how the leo does in ukraine…
@@marcstein2510 You’re right with the „proofing in combat“ argument but on paper it’s better than the A1 Abrams and the Leo will get a major update to Leopard 3, so a complete new construction, soon.
I was a tank platoon leader in Iraq in 2003-04. A few notes - you used images of Bradleys in several sequences. Those are not tanks but infantry fighting vehicles. Meant mostly for troop transport. - Yes in the 3 machine guns, no on all the machine guns on the top of the tank. (1) 240 m machine gun is located beside the main gun barrel. It is controlled by the gunner. There are several other things to nitpick, but those were the most blatant.
I know nothing about tanks, but this sure seems like a dumb clip to me. 2 minutes in and the reason we should fear Abrams is because their shells are big and their continuous steel plate treads allow them to go places where other vehicles can't go? Can't that be said about just about every tank ever deployed?
These tanks aren't the greatest tanks in the world and the united states isn't telling you the full truth it all they are lying to you, just like how for some reason they can't tell you where all the money is being spent on. Anyways when United States went to war in the gulf War they forgot to mention one thing the type of tanks they were fighting they were very fucking old soviet tanks with no modernization done to them. Plus on top of that Iraq never truly trained their soldiers on tanks to use them correctly nor they had the money to fix them and that is literally factual. Second time in Iraq same shit united states fought a country with tanks that its soldiers barely used or even knew how to fix them because of money. It really shows how weak America is to go against countries with less experience knowing how to use a tank. Also these tanks aren't great they have many weak points lmao 🤣 in the Yemen war well the yemenies proved it that russian cornets take them out like nothing I've seen those videos. Another proof of the amount of bullshit the media and the united states is telling you. Same thing goes to the leopard 2s they been used in war and same shit russian cornets took them out. If you have to balls to speak the truth speak it right if not go back to your basement
@Kermit T. Frog no I wasn't saying you in general. I was just responding to the first comment, I do not know what you know or not on the Abrams but just to give you heads up it's not the full truth the Abrams is a cool tank but to operate then is night mare,the soldiers that were operating in Iraq say its logistics is horrible they break down fast especially their optic systems
Wait, why would they use aluminum for sabots? Isn't it usually Tungsten or depleted Uranium? Aluminum seems like it is on the opposite end of the spectrum as one of the least dense metals. Maybe you mean just the petals?
I think it really depends on who is using M1 Abrams. M1 Abrams is only suitable for the U.S. military in an open battle field against other MBTs. Two of the most crucial criteria for M1 Abrams survival in battle are: (1) you must rule the air and (2) you must have seamless fuel/logistic support. Saudi's campaign in Yeman demonstrated M1 Abrams' vulnerability. The Houthi fighters were able to destroy many M1 Abrams using only AK47, RPG and gasoline. First, the Houthi used RPGs to destroy the fuel supply trucks. Second, the Houthi fighters would lure Saudi M1 Abrams into a wild chase until the tank ran out of fuel (which happened very quickly). Third, the Houthi fighters would use AK47 to force the soldiers to stay inside the tanks. Finally, the Houthi fighters would pour gasoline over the tank and burn the soldiers inside the tank to death.
What about your T-14 Armata? Your country ran out of money in the 3 day operation in Ukraine so you couldnt buy them and the company making them went bankrupt. Wasnt the T-14 supposed to be the worlds best and most feared tank? You know the reason its called a T-14 is because they only could afford to make 14 of them
Lol you are coping real hard. Russia is still in the conflict after 2 and half years, I don't see them remotely bankrupt and their military production is higher than USA and rest of Nato combined right now. It's YOU who is struggling.@@MrTefe
@@MrTefe"proof where you got that from" ACCORDING TO CNN RESEARCH Russian ammo production for the artillery is 3 times higher than USA and Europe. And Artillery did 70% of the total damage in the conflict and is the biggest factor in deciding the winner. Also according to you guys the Russians are ALWAYS running completely out of equipment and tanks since the beginning of Rus-Ukr conflict. But SOMEHOW the Russians are STILL in the conflict in advantageous postion with most of Donbass captured (only small portions are left to capture). Does this need a proof? No because the proof is actually everywhere even the Ukrainians are showing the map of the conflict showing most of donbass is under Russian control and USA and Ukr is unable to regain the land fell to Russia. The Russians are using mostly old tanks because Old tanks are cheap they have a lot of them in the arsenal, but also have many new tanks in the arsenal, but newer tanks are more expensive. This conflict needs a large number of tanks, artillery other armoured vehicles to crush the defenses and capture areas so the Russians are doing exactly that. The USA also have a large number of old tanks. According to Global Firepower the Russians have around 14,000 tanks as of now. But even if let's say the Russians didn't produce a single new tank in this 2.5 year conflict and believe Ukr claims about Russians "losing" 3000 tanks, they Russian would still have 9,900 tanks in it's arsenal because before the conflict they had 12,900 tanks (according to gfp). The Ukr and Western media themselves acknowledged how badly the Russians are outnumbering Ukr forces in artillery, drones, tanks, manpower, air superiority. Basically everything. And if Ukr is so successful as said in western cope media, they why are they unable to regain ANY of the land captured? By the way they are still losing land and is in a brink of Frontline collapse. Worthless US equipments.
The Abrams is great for an open field tank on tank warfare. However, it’s drawbacks are it’s weight which can limit it’s ability to cross bridges. It also is a gas hog and requires very skilled technicians for its maintenance. It was perfect for desert storm. It’s questionable for terrain like Ukraine which has mushy ground and lots of rivers to cross.
The weight issue is a problem with all tanks, not just the Abrams. The gas isn't a problem because the US military has the support structure in place to keep them fueled (see Desert Storm again). And what's that about maintenance? I know it has flaws, but compared to other tanks it's nothing to be concerned about.
@@kamraam1464 russian tanks never had weight issues since their tank is small and uses auto loader, their tank can crosses many old,small bridges, and muddy/forest condition in the eastern europe where abrams would get stuck or simply destroy the bridge because of its weight
If Abrams were just transferred directly to Ukraine, they would probably struggle with them yes, but if it was supported by full US military infrastructure and training then I think they would wipe the floor with Russian armor.
@@mooseberry63 You run away from Afghanistan! Way? Conflict in Ukraine was set by the West and you comprehended what was coming next! You knew that Russian equipment would be given to locals(afghanis)as you are now doing to Ukraine.
@@ncc1701218 то що ти кажеш, тобі це сам путін на вухо нашептав? Руцкіє солдати захоплюють украінські землі , вбивають украінців а йому захід винний , де логіка чоловіче?
They are awesome! And when they’re not busy protecting the fuel truck and the repair truck following immediately behind them, they make awesome weapons, too.
@@Coach_Cann0n @Coach_Cann0n so your only counter argument is turret launched in air? weird since no russian ever tout their tank to be the world's best unlike you people who fight some camel farmer with ak, and then stroke your own dick with saying your's the best
When you deploy 10x less tanks, you expect 10x losses.... Challengers have never been deployed in the numbers the Abrams has.... trying to use the fact that a tank that's only seen combat a handful of times and in extremely small numbers(200 challengers vs 3,000+ Abrams in the case of the Persian Gulf War) as proof that it's superior is just hilariously dumb. The Challenger is just as good as the Abrams, and the Abrams just as good as the Challenger. The only reason Challengers haven't been destroyed by enemy action is that they've seen comparatively far less action than the Abrams has.
@Dan Ershen but Gordon didn't say that Challenger 2 was a better tank (personally I think they're equal but better for each tanks intended doctrine) only that the Chally 2 hadn't been knocked out by enemy fire like the Abrams has, which is true but also we have to remember that the Chally weighs more and a lot of that tends to come from armour packages (there are a variety of add/remove armour plates to suit any given environment) so it's going to stand up to more hits with a full suite of armour attached. I don't think the numbers thing is valid though; 1 Challenger and 1 Abrams in Iraq or Afghanistan will still have to face the same kinds of weaponry, and Challenger has proven it can withstand numerous hits from weaponry that Abrams wasn't able to. To me it depends on what you want your tank to do for which is better. Both tanks are excellent within their militaries war doctrine. I wouldn't want to be an enemy with those 2 tanks working together against me, chuck in the Leopard 2 as well and I'd be crapping my undies.
ok, this clip convinced me not to mess with the m1 abrams. Before I was considering messing with the abrams with my 2001 kia parked on my driveway, but this video talked me out of it.
@@rxonmymind8362 challenger 2 has had combat experience and it was the Abrams that took losses one report of a challenger taking 12 hits and kept fighting
The M1 Abrams (/ˈeɪbrəmz/)[8] is a third-generation American main battle tank designed by Chrysler Defense (now General Dynamics Land Systems)[9] and named for General Creighton Abrams. Conceived for modern armored ground warfare and now one of the heaviest tanks in service at nearly 68 short tons (62 metric tons), it introduced several modern technologies to US armored forces, including a multifuel turbine engine, sophisticated Chobham composite armor, a computer fire control system, separate ammunition storage in a blowout compartment, and NBC protection for crew safety. Initial models of the M1 were armed with a 105 mm M68 gun, while later variants feature a license-produced Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44 designated M256.
The Leopard 2 is much more balanced in it's skills and in it's limits. It's the #1 MBT in Europe and at Nato allies - even in the canadian army and always winner at european strong tank challange (SETC), without exception.
The majority of the viewers are Americans. Don’t come up with facts to this folks. Murica #1 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 Zumal der Abrams die Rheinmetall Kanone in L44 nutzt, unser Leo die L55.
Ironically the superior performance metrics of the M1 turbine was originally specifically targeted for operation in the woodlands of Europe, not the deserts of the middle east.
man i think that RUSSIAN COPIUM TANK has an apfsds or it does not have apfsds he only kill me with one shot so that why you kid (not meant to offend all chanels pls no ban)
This reminds me, the US ran a project to design a pen to work in space & Russians simply used a pencil. I just see a tech device that Ed’s huge maintenance & specialist operation, and a deep pocket.Simply put, an endless money PIT
All was well until super conductive graphite dust started floating around the ship, got sucked in by the vents, caused a short circuit, and the rocket fucking caught on fire and exploded. After the Apollo 1 disaster, the Soviets stopped using pencils too.
I've read during the Gulf War, 9 Abrams were lost. None were lost to enemy fire. Unfortunately, 7 were lost to friendly fire, and 2 were intentionally scuttled as they broke down and couldn't be readily fixed. That tank is a monster!
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 Because challengers were few and far between. And weren't constantly put in harms way like the abrams. That's like saying. "The coast guard didn't lose any troops. they are the best" No. Because they didn't see intense fighting.
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958The more equipment you have deployed, the more that will have problems or breakdown. It's just a higher chance. Multiple factors as well.
I saw a film of a WWII tank battle in North Africa where the tanks were blasting at each other in plain sight. Then I saw a film of a WWII Naval Battle. The lead US ship laid down a thick smoke screen that hid the other ships from the Japanese. So, I have wondered if tanks ever use smoke screens to hid themselves from the enemy ?
Sure as hell didn't scare anyone who was already willing to strap bombs to themselves and take out those tanks Keep telling yourself that American weaponry is so great And by the way, a whole lot of these weapons were left behind for the same people who were never afraid of them
Yeah, but it drove around with a beer glass balanced on its barrell. That said, i wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either the Leopard, or the Abrahms.
@@rodgermurphy5721 Now it's the time to prove himself, we will se what will happen. UKR is a totally different ball game , winter froze, mud and strong opponent with capable army like never before. There is no armored vehicle on this world immune to missile, drone or guided artillery munition.
@@rodgermurphy5721Abrams and his crews will squat and crap themselves in UKR like nazis and their collaborators did during WW2. Maybe they sunk in mud like German tanks did during battle of Kursk. For your information, Abrams power plant, Honeywell AGT1500 is a real gas guzzler, gas turbine is less fuel efficient then piston ICE engine so I cannot understand what are you talking about. Unless Abrams have some secret USS enterprise shield installed it will be just another target practice for RU and it will rust like any other destroyed army equipment. Good luck with Abrams shitty tank.
Leopard 2 enters the room wining and saying:..but everybody keept telling me I was the best and I believed it,why are people so cruel? said the Leopard 2 and exited the room heart broken and crying inconsolably..
The French Leclerc and German Leopard 2 maybe compete with the Abrams for the top spot, but the Abrams X would hands down be the best if it were ever built, which right now we really don't need to.
@Jardel it had low production numbers, bad automotive components, for example, the hl230 engine that was used had a chance to backfire and start a fuel fire, the turret was cramped, and the transmission was overstressed by the crazy weight. All it had was it’s great gun, that could kill any allied tank, the only problem was if the unreliable tank could even make it to the fight without breaking down. Also the armor wasn’t great because of poor weld quality and less effective metals used to make the armor.
Insurgents can destroyed anything. This is not a weapons systems to fight insurgents this is a tank to destroyed enemy tank and occupy the land. Tell your insurgents to fight a conventional war with tanks and let's see how long they last.
@@totoitekelcha7628 I can understand you dumbness in obvious common sense. A tank is a protective equipment used protect soldiers as they assault the opponent. It's not in any military manual that if an insurgent comes with RPG, don't bring the tank and others bring RPG as well. That's dumb. If the opponent has a RPG, you bring a best protective gear that can handle the RPG plus an RPG or a tank gun to eliminate the opponent without taking any damages. A war is not a game that you chose how someone will fight you. If you bring a tank, if a slingshot can take out a tank then fine. The outcome is what matters.
she will be really tested now , but they will arrive when it is too late . they have to wait until the ground is dry, so that is already a disadvantage of that heavy tank
3 gallons of jet fuel per mile is probably one of the worst points this tank has. Oh and the jet engine exhaust lights up thermal imagery like a massive bonfire.
@@SexyVistaNerd Bro, we saw the destruction of Abrams tanks in Iraq, even in Yemen. stop suck the ***** of america. you have to accept that the power of the countries in the war is very close.
@@waltertheterrible6062 My friend, I live in Iran & let me tell u, We are the ones who made the war expensive for America. We are the same people who soaked you in fear when we took you hostage in the Persian Gulf. We are the ones who acquired military technology in just 30 years without anyone giving us military technology, and our cheapest missiles and drones can destroy the US billion dollar ship. We are the same power that America and NATO are afraid to enter into a direct war with Unlike other Middle Eastern countries. We are the ones who helped our neighboring countries that were crushed as you say. We are the next power of the world order along with other powers. deal with it.
To anyone saying "This tank only runs of jetfuel, so where are you gonna get it in war?" The M1 Abrams literally runs on anything flammable, even your plain old diesel!
It's true.They are used now only when you have(or have no choice) to go dark and are going against an army with equal drone strength.Then it goes to the ground.Drones are the future of warfare
Why you should be afraid...because with the right crew one of these can drop multiple tanks in no time whatsoever. Add into it the rounds we play with, like the shotgun round we got in Iraq, yeah don't fuck with this bad boy. Best days in the Army were out at gunnery having fun with platoon and crew. Best steaks I've ever eaten were after qualifying on table 8.
Russian tanks could do the same and more easily (autoloader and a generally better idea on how to make tanks), but you don't see it because Russian soldiers are barely qualified to even walk
@tuluppampam on the auto loader, there's a problem compared to human loaders. We load faster. Average load time on the auto is 5-7 seconds or longer. The average time for a human loader is anywhere between 1.5- 3 seconds. As to the type of tanks, yeah, not really worried since they have been getting hammered by the Ukrainians, and half are broken to begin with. I'm still not worried about Russian tanks.
@@alexanderroloff8093 that's just not true. Autoloaders load faster than humans, but they tend to bring other complications, which is why they're not as widespread (source: Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a valid source because it provided them in this case) They make security lower, are prone to breaking, may require the gun to be brought to a neutral position (but given how quickly guns move nowadays it's almost not a problem in time), which might not be great if one wishes to maintain the same exact aim, and more They also bring advantages: they allow for faster firing, they allow tanks to be smaller, and there's no longer a need for a manual loader, which either makes them able to support the rest of the crew (perhaps rotating shifts, allowing for operations all day) or just deletes them from the tank
@tuluppampam Wikipedia isn't reliable on this. I was a tanker for 13yrs and I watched people (including me) load faster than auto loaders. Again humans can load faster than an auto. Watched in Fort Carson and again in Iraq when they got the 72s.
@@alexanderroloff8093 why would countries build tanks with autoloaders if they don't even load faster? If Wikipedia isn't correct, please edit it and make sure to add your references (personal experience doesn't count unless it's like an interview or something) But autoloaders are definitely faster, else they wouldn't have been developed for over 80 years They also tend to become faster with bigger shells (surprise! The heavier the shell, the longer it'll take to load properly, and the fewer you can load before becoming tired), when their advantage becomes significant All I can find on the internet shows that autoloaders are faster in combat situations, as humans aren't machines, but the extra set of hands and eyes for the crew can be very important Your opinion is one of the many I can find, and, given the rest I've seen, you seem to go against the majority. If this were a moral question it'd be lovely to discuss more in detail, but here we're trying to define a more general idea behind the speed of autoloaders, which is clearly objective and measurable. I simply cannot find anything suggesting autoloaders to be slower than humans, except if the human is loading in what is essentially a perfect situation (i.e. the tank is still and their not in combat, while just trying to dish out as many shots as possible), while autoloaders become quicker in combat and movement (not by a lot, but even 2 seconds can be the difference between returning home or not). Autoloaders also become a lot faster with artillery (because those shells are big), but I was considering tanks, so I don't care
Unpopular opinion: Future iterations of the Abrams should not include an auto-loading system. More moving parts means more potential mechanical issues that could be critical to the survival of the crew. However, a 19-year-old Loader fueled by Red Bull and Nicotine doesn't jam.
Do not forget to add that this is freedom in the American way. And it comes in the form of bombing and tanks that shoot at houses. In Iraq, you freed from 750 to 1 million 200 thousand from life in this world. The same thing is being done in Ukraine by pitting the Slavic people and solving their problems with someone else's hands. Should I tell you who benefits from it ?
Best tank?! Is that a joke? Outside the US Army, this is possibly the worst tank of our time. Unlike European and Russian tanks, it requires a huge supply and repair base. It has never been used in modern warfare, and any attempts to use a tank in conditions where the enemy even has an old ATGM ended in losses.
Challenger 2 has good armor but that's about it. The gun isnt great, no CITV, and a myriad of other issues that other tanks have remedied. It's a good tank, but there are better ones out there. Also pretty sure the UK wouldnt sell them.
General Petraeus said the Ukraine does not have the capabilities to use the M1. They are complicated and heavy. For example they don't have loaders that can carry them, they don't know to maintain the turbine, etc etc. They are better served with the Soviet equipment. The Germans Army agrees with this assessment. Modern warfare is won by perfect logistics, excellence in reconnaissance, and brave people.
Well, we’re going to find out soon if it really is the greatest tank in the world. I sure hope I is. There’s going to be some extensive battlefield testing in Ukraine. Can’t wait to see what it can do against beat up T72s in the Donbas. I think they’ll do well. Slava Ukraine
⚙ Want to know more about the latest tech and innovations? Don’t Miss Out!
*SUBSCRIBE & HIT THE BELL* 👉bit.ly/SubscribeNowIE
This tank has little secrets that nobody will ever know about. Information that is even spoon-feed to us crew and kept within the crew. Trust me when I say, there is no other tank like the Abrams. If the crew wants you dead, you will be...and never see it coming. Best job I ever had!
Have u ever felt what it seems like to get hit by Kornet while u r inside ur abrams? Gonna get toasted crew
@@invincible4702 After watching the Russian military struggle in Ukraine, the entire world now knows that it's a paper tiger. It's now very, very difficult to take it seriously.
@@classicgalactica5879 bullsh!t , check US losses in Vietnam
@@classicgalactica5879 at least ukraine is not as weak as vietnam
@@invincible4702 The Soviet Union got it's butt kicked in Afghanistan. China lost to Vietnam. What's your point?
The gas turbine engines on board are absolutely the best dammed turbine blades that money can buy ! I know , I worked in the manufacturing plant for 16 years in Toronto , Canada and handled over 1 million gas turbine blades for that engine program . That's all we made were military gas turbine blades . The engine program was called the AGT 1500 . As each shipment was ready , they were sent to our customer "The Textron/Lycoming Aircraft Company" .
The turbine blades for the AGT1500 were made of a certain grade of Stainless Steel , best God dammed turbine blades in the world ! Other engine programs for other customers were MTU , Rolls Royce , General Electric , SNECMA , Pratt & Whitney , Garrett , Airesearch , Rocketdyne ; none of these used stainless steel turbine blades except for the AGT 1500 . I can still picture them vividly in my mind . Last I heard the US government had stock piled about 7000 finished AGT1500 engines in a US warehouse .
Thank you for the defense of America. This turbine is so much more power i think and much greater reliability than even a 1,500 hundred horsepower diesel engine.
General Electric makes a outstanding turbine....in fact I personally witnessed a fighting falcon engine in full afterburner in a test facility best jet in the world.
As a 50 year recently retired precision toolmaker who always worked in a job shop, hiw do you stay sane making the same damn part all day every day?
Sounds like hell to me.
@@fubartotale3389 The list I gave is 8 companies long . Each customers parts were being worked on all over the plant . It's not one part being worked on for 16 years . Each customer had 5 to 15 different part numbers as well as experimental parts . The highest qty we produced was for MTU of Germany , they were for the RB 199 engine program that went into the standard NATO jet fighter called the Panavia Toronado .
Turbines are a shitty engine for a tank. Have you ever heard of Tarnfahrt? Not even possible with a turbine.
I feel most modern western tanks are fairly equal. The big deciding factors being crew training,experience, and logistical support.
@Jardel really? I thought leo 2a6 and 2a7 are more advanced because they are newer models but maybe abrams was way ahead of its time
@@ΜικηςΖεζας I don't know, Ambrams has gotten a lot of upgrades over time, even if the basis is still the same.
Abrams are so advanced that it can not be deployed in Ukraine 🤣🤣🤣
@@princeo15 well that didn't age well.....
@@princeo15oh well RIP this statement
I was escort to two Hungarian General Officers on a visit to the Lima Army Tank Plant. These officers had been armor officers in the Hungarian Army trained on Soviet tank designs and they thought very highly of Russian equipment. The plant tour was a briefing on the M-1 and then a tour of the facility that was from raw material to driving a tank off the assembly line. We then took them to live fire, trained them and let them crew a tank. WOW, did they change their tune, They described their experience as "Star Wars".
and now we get to see them in action against said soviet tank. I'll bring the popcorn.
Is it common for high ranking officers to know how to drive a tank?
@@nealburns8815 In many instances, Officers were prohibited to drive vehicles. 82d Airborne had such policies when I was first with them. The only way I had a military drivers license was because I was a company motor officer and had to conduct test drives. Both Hungarian General Officers had been enlisted at one time and crewed AFVs..
@@nealburns8815 - You just jump in and drive. I drove a Bradley during the first Gulf War and stayed behind to load the armor onto ships afterward. I drove every vehicle in the arsenal without training.
@@nealburns8815 Not necessary. Only if they started in tanks on their rise through the ranks.
Well, except for the Leopard 2 2A6 probably. The Leo only needs 1/3 of the fuel of that thing, which is a real issue logistics-wise.
The leo has never proved itself in combat as far as i know. Until now it has only been a plaything in germany by the bundeswehr. US army has gathered valuable combat information in the last 2 decades that have been incorporated in the last abrams updates. Let’s see how the leo does in ukraine…
@@marcstein2510 You’re right with the „proofing in combat“ argument but on paper it’s better than the A1 Abrams and the Leo will get a major update to Leopard 3, so a complete new construction, soon.
@@marcstein2510 it was in afghanistan
@@TheFlooable it was in Afghanistan
Kinda a non factor if your owner and operator country is the USA.
They will just send 5 trucks full of fuel for every tank they deploy 🤷
Frankly I don't need anyone to tell why I should be afraid of the abrams, or any other tank actually
I was afraid before watching the video
Thank you! At the end of the day, a tank is a tank
I was a tank platoon leader in Iraq in 2003-04. A few notes
- you used images of Bradleys in several sequences. Those are not tanks but infantry fighting vehicles. Meant mostly for troop transport.
- Yes in the 3 machine guns, no on all the machine guns on the top of the tank. (1) 240 m machine gun is located beside the main gun barrel. It is controlled by the gunner.
There are several other things to nitpick, but those were the most blatant.
"Hey guys! Found the LT!"
I know nothing about tanks, but this sure seems like a dumb clip to me. 2 minutes in and the reason we should fear Abrams is because their shells are big and their continuous steel plate treads allow them to go places where other vehicles can't go? Can't that be said about just about every tank ever deployed?
These tanks aren't the greatest tanks in the world and the united states isn't telling you the full truth it all they are lying to you, just like how for some reason they can't tell you where all the money is being spent on. Anyways when United States went to war in the gulf War they forgot to mention one thing the type of tanks they were fighting they were very fucking old soviet tanks with no modernization done to them. Plus on top of that Iraq never truly trained their soldiers on tanks to use them correctly nor they had the money to fix them and that is literally factual. Second time in Iraq same shit united states fought a country with tanks that its soldiers barely used or even knew how to fix them because of money. It really shows how weak America is to go against countries with less experience knowing how to use a tank. Also these tanks aren't great they have many weak points lmao 🤣 in the Yemen war well the yemenies proved it that russian cornets take them out like nothing I've seen those videos. Another proof of the amount of bullshit the media and the united states is telling you. Same thing goes to the leopard 2s they been used in war and same shit russian cornets took them out. If you have to balls to speak the truth speak it right if not go back to your basement
@@rajababbasov8666 I have no idea if this is the best tank in the world or not. And neither do you Seems to me like that depends on the situation.
@Kermit T. Frog no I wasn't saying you in general. I was just responding to the first comment, I do not know what you know or not on the Abrams but just to give you heads up it's not the full truth the Abrams is a cool tank but to operate then is night mare,the soldiers that were operating in Iraq say its logistics is horrible they break down fast especially their optic systems
Multi-tread drifting!!
Seriously though, that was really cool. Speaks about the skills of the operator.
GAAAAAS GAAAAS GAAAAS IM GONNA STEP ON THE GAS TONIIIIIIIGHT!
@@zombinathenecro8035 Imagine going Deja Vu on M1 Abrams, lmao
I worked in a aluminum factory that cast the aluminum for the sabots it shot.we saw a movie that showed it hitting a tank 5 miles away.awesome
Top choice for engaging enemy armor, but my favorite has always been a CAN round :)
Wait, why would they use aluminum for sabots? Isn't it usually Tungsten or depleted Uranium? Aluminum seems like it is on the opposite end of the spectrum as one of the least dense metals. Maybe you mean just the petals?
@@brooklyna007 sabot here means the petals like you said
I work at a factory, assembling drones. A few days ago my Lancet made fireworks out of an Abrams at 20 miles.
I think it really depends on who is using M1 Abrams. M1 Abrams is only suitable for the U.S. military in an open battle field against other MBTs. Two of the most crucial criteria for M1 Abrams survival in battle are: (1) you must rule the air and (2) you must have seamless fuel/logistic support. Saudi's campaign in Yeman demonstrated M1 Abrams' vulnerability.
The Houthi fighters were able to destroy many M1 Abrams using only AK47, RPG and gasoline. First, the Houthi used RPGs to destroy the fuel supply trucks. Second, the Houthi fighters would lure Saudi M1 Abrams into a wild chase until the tank ran out of fuel (which happened very quickly). Third, the Houthi fighters would use AK47 to force the soldiers to stay inside the tanks. Finally, the Houthi fighters would pour gasoline over the tank and burn the soldiers inside the tank to death.
Bs
The greatest tank ever made, yes, but they forgot to add that it can be destroyed by cheap shovels.
Hollywood make good movies 😂
What about your T-14 Armata? Your country ran out of money in the 3 day operation in Ukraine so you couldnt buy them and the company making them went bankrupt. Wasnt the T-14 supposed to be the worlds best and most feared tank?
You know the reason its called a T-14 is because they only could afford to make 14 of them
.....how many "hollywood movies" with tanks see in the last decade ?... yep, nonr
Lol you are coping real hard. Russia is still in the conflict after 2 and half years, I don't see them remotely bankrupt and their military production is higher than USA and rest of Nato combined right now. It's YOU who is struggling.@@MrTefe
@@graphite8842 Lmao then why are they using outdated tanks? Also show me where you got that bullshit from? Proof which is not a propaganda site
@@MrTefe"proof where you got that from" ACCORDING TO CNN RESEARCH Russian ammo production for the artillery is 3 times higher than USA and Europe. And Artillery did 70% of the total damage in the conflict and is the biggest factor in deciding the winner. Also according to you guys the Russians are ALWAYS running completely out of equipment and tanks since the beginning of Rus-Ukr conflict. But SOMEHOW the Russians are STILL in the conflict in advantageous postion with most of Donbass captured (only small portions are left to capture). Does this need a proof? No because the proof is actually everywhere even the Ukrainians are showing the map of the conflict showing most of donbass is under Russian control and USA and Ukr is unable to regain the land fell to Russia. The Russians are using mostly old tanks because Old tanks are cheap they have a lot of them in the arsenal, but also have many new tanks in the arsenal, but newer tanks are more expensive. This conflict needs a large number of tanks, artillery other armoured vehicles to crush the defenses and capture areas so the Russians are doing exactly that. The USA also have a large number of old tanks. According to Global Firepower the Russians have around 14,000 tanks as of now. But even if let's say the Russians didn't produce a single new tank in this 2.5 year conflict and believe Ukr claims about Russians "losing" 3000 tanks, they Russian would still have 9,900 tanks in it's arsenal because before the conflict they had 12,900 tanks (according to gfp). The Ukr and Western media themselves acknowledged how badly the Russians are outnumbering Ukr forces in artillery, drones, tanks, manpower, air superiority. Basically everything. And if Ukr is so successful as said in western cope media, they why are they unable to regain ANY of the land captured? By the way they are still losing land and is in a brink of Frontline collapse. Worthless US equipments.
The Abrams is great for an open field tank on tank warfare. However, it’s drawbacks are it’s weight which can limit it’s ability to cross bridges. It also is a gas hog and requires very skilled technicians for its maintenance. It was perfect for desert storm. It’s questionable for terrain like Ukraine which has mushy ground and lots of rivers to cross.
The weight issue is a problem with all tanks, not just the Abrams. The gas isn't a problem because the US military has the support structure in place to keep them fueled (see Desert Storm again). And what's that about maintenance? I know it has flaws, but compared to other tanks it's nothing to be concerned about.
@@kamraam1464 russian tanks never had weight issues since their tank is small and uses auto loader, their tank can crosses many old,small bridges, and muddy/forest condition in the eastern europe where abrams would get stuck or simply destroy the bridge because of its weight
If Abrams were just transferred directly to Ukraine, they would probably struggle with them yes, but if it was supported by full US military infrastructure and training then I think they would wipe the floor with Russian armor.
@@mooseberry63
You run away from Afghanistan!
Way?
Conflict in Ukraine was set by the West and you comprehended what was coming next!
You knew that Russian equipment would be given to locals(afghanis)as you are now doing to Ukraine.
@@ncc1701218 то що ти кажеш, тобі це сам путін на вухо нашептав? Руцкіє солдати захоплюють украінські землі , вбивають украінців а йому захід винний , де логіка чоловіче?
This seems an incredibly simplistic video. A lot of general tank info like describing the tracks, that all tanks have.
Yeah, so stupid. XD
Toyota is the best car in the world because it has wheels and an engine - this video in a nutshell
Imagine looking through binoculars and seeing that thing leveled at you.
They are awesome! And when they’re not busy protecting the fuel truck and the repair truck following immediately behind them, they make awesome weapons, too.
Drones are the new boy on the block
Russian Army Destroyed 7th In A Row US ABRAMS Tank and Entered The Settlement of SEMENOVKA. hwa,hwa,hwa
I am glad we are in the same side, Americans.
Love and respect
From Canada.
Lots of unistatians want to annex Canada, so beware of them (they also wanna annex Mexico and Cuba, but it isn't the point)
I was at Aberdeen proving grounds in 87 and heard during testing it jumped a
Ditch, the turent spun and fired in mid air with a bullseye shot.
THE GREATEST TANK EVER MADE! except for the Challenger, possibly also the leopard
2023 they shall all be tested against the Russian invasion of Ukraine!
Nah the german Tiger 2 from ww2 is the best ever made 🫡
@@3l3 Nah Napolean's horse-drawn cannons were the best ever made. They conquered most of Europe.
challenger ?? that's random
I would always prefer a tank that runs with diesel over one that runs with kerosine
These turbine engines are much quieter than the desiel machines
I’m Canadian, I have no guns to fight this monster. 😂😂😂
No problem. You must have dogs and explosives. Strap a bomb to a dog and have it run underneath tank. KABOOM!!!
it already burn in ukraine, best tank in the world my ass
It was hidden .. but when finally appeared... it didn't last longer than the leaopard.
How many T series tanks have been destroyed? And how many crews went to space because the ammo detonated and launched the turret in the air?
@@Coach_Cann0n @Coach_Cann0n so your only counter argument is turret launched in air? weird since no russian ever tout their tank to be the world's best unlike you people who fight some camel farmer with ak, and then stroke your own dick with saying your's the best
Doesnt change the fact that Abrams wasnt invincible like it was propagandized to me@@Coach_Cann0n
@@christopersambeli2823 Shut up Russian kid
The Leopard 2 is widely regarded as the best tank in the world. That doesnt take anything away from the M1 however.
The British Challenger hasn’t been knocked out by enemy action, unlike the Abrams…
When you deploy 10x less tanks, you expect 10x losses.... Challengers have never been deployed in the numbers the Abrams has.... trying to use the fact that a tank that's only seen combat a handful of times and in extremely small numbers(200 challengers vs 3,000+ Abrams in the case of the Persian Gulf War) as proof that it's superior is just hilariously dumb.
The Challenger is just as good as the Abrams, and the Abrams just as good as the Challenger. The only reason Challengers haven't been destroyed by enemy action is that they've seen comparatively far less action than the Abrams has.
@Dan Ershen but Gordon didn't say that Challenger 2 was a better tank (personally I think they're equal but better for each tanks intended doctrine) only that the Chally 2 hadn't been knocked out by enemy fire like the Abrams has, which is true but also we have to remember that the Chally weighs more and a lot of that tends to come from armour packages (there are a variety of add/remove armour plates to suit any given environment) so it's going to stand up to more hits with a full suite of armour attached. I don't think the numbers thing is valid though; 1 Challenger and 1 Abrams in Iraq or Afghanistan will still have to face the same kinds of weaponry, and Challenger has proven it can withstand numerous hits from weaponry that Abrams wasn't able to. To me it depends on what you want your tank to do for which is better. Both tanks are excellent within their militaries war doctrine. I wouldn't want to be an enemy with those 2 tanks working together against me, chuck in the Leopard 2 as well and I'd be crapping my undies.
@@thecoon3193 And on top of that, most of the Abrams that were "knocked out" were by friendly fire.
@@Rapherd Isn’t that worse?!
@@foksmashdoor2272 For the commander it is much worse but it says less about the tank's defenses.
Nah, think I will stick to the Challenger 2. Thank you very much.
Definitely best job I ever had
ok, this clip convinced me not to mess with the m1 abrams. Before I was considering messing with the abrams with my 2001 kia parked on my driveway, but this video talked me out of it.
Chad won the Toyota war against tanks, so you could do the same
The greatest tank ever made that's a bold statement seeing has the challenger 2 and leopard 2 would more than match it
Need combat experience. Not speculation on a sheet.
@@rxonmymind8362 both have
@@rxonmymind8362 Challenger, Gulf War, not lost a single tank unlike Abrams…
@@rxonmymind8362 challenger 2 has had combat experience and it was the Abrams that took losses one report of a challenger taking 12 hits and kept fighting
@@gordonmcmillan5556 The M1 needs the USAF to survive…
Challenger II gives it a good run for its money
Now I want to drive the tank after see this
Okay Indian LoL
The M1 Abrams (/ˈeɪbrəmz/)[8] is a third-generation American main battle tank designed by Chrysler Defense (now General Dynamics Land Systems)[9] and named for General Creighton Abrams. Conceived for modern armored ground warfare and now one of the heaviest tanks in service at nearly 68 short tons (62 metric tons), it introduced several modern technologies to US armored forces, including a multifuel turbine engine, sophisticated Chobham composite armor, a computer fire control system, separate ammunition storage in a blowout compartment, and NBC protection for crew safety. Initial models of the M1 were armed with a 105 mm M68 gun, while later variants feature a license-produced Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44 designated M256.
In my travel's, many people say that the Leopard 2 is comparable or better than the M1.
NATO: Can we deliver Abram tanks to Ukraine?
Putin: No tanks!
NATO: Okay we will deliver HIMARS
Putin: Hi Mars!
The Leopard 2 is much more balanced in it's skills and in it's limits. It's the #1 MBT in Europe and at Nato allies - even in the canadian army and always winner at european strong tank challange (SETC), without exception.
The majority of the viewers are Americans. Don’t come up with facts to this folks. Murica #1 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Zumal der Abrams die Rheinmetall Kanone in L44 nutzt, unser Leo die L55.
Except it is yet to actually win in real combat.
Uh yeah you are really talking out of your Donkey…aka!
@@RMASUPERFLY This year in Ukraine is the real test of tanks.
Ironically the superior performance metrics of the M1 turbine was originally specifically targeted for operation in the woodlands of Europe, not the deserts of the middle east.
T-72 B3 took it out with ONE shot
man i think that RUSSIAN COPIUM TANK has an apfsds or it does not have apfsds he only kill me with one shot so that why you kid (not meant to offend all chanels pls no ban)
Ukrainian drone 😂
Love that drifting I'm glad they're not coming for me
I'm glad we sent some of these beauties to Poland.
I absolutely fear this tank if I encounter one of these whilst driving my 2007 Vauxhall Astra I will try to give it a wide berth.
This reminds me, the US ran a project to design a pen to work in space & Russians simply used a pencil. I just see a tech device that Ed’s huge maintenance & specialist operation, and a deep pocket.Simply put, an endless money PIT
All was well until super conductive graphite dust started floating around the ship, got sucked in by the vents, caused a short circuit, and the rocket fucking caught on fire and exploded.
After the Apollo 1 disaster, the Soviets stopped using pencils too.
Warning Russian copium in the comments
When do we get electric tanks?
Turns out, real life is not only Afghanistan where you steamroll kids with guns. Not the machine it was promised to be against a real army.
They just angry they best tank got stopped by a bradley
are you sure about that?
This aged like milk
Sounds like a car salesman who asks you "What do I have to do to get you behind the skid steer of this ummmmm...tank?"
Neva fear, just have the right stuff ready.
I've read during the Gulf War, 9 Abrams were lost. None were lost to enemy fire. Unfortunately, 7 were lost to friendly fire, and 2 were intentionally scuttled as they broke down and couldn't be readily fixed. That tank is a monster!
No Challengers were taken out in the same wars
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 Because challengers were few and far between. And weren't constantly put in harms way like the abrams. That's like saying. "The coast guard didn't lose any troops. they are the best" No. Because they didn't see intense fighting.
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958The more equipment you have deployed, the more that will have problems or breakdown. It's just a higher chance. Multiple factors as well.
That talks enough about the crew's incapability. How did they manage to hit their own dudes so many times?
@@GegeDxD jumpy crews, or trigger happy ones, ammericans also have a bad habit of shooting first, and asking questions later
An American claiming it's the worlds greatest, where have i heard that before?
In their dream
hollyweird movies
Russian bots?
I saw a film of a WWII tank battle in North Africa where the tanks were blasting at each other in plain sight. Then I saw a film of a WWII Naval Battle. The lead US ship laid down a thick smoke screen that hid the other ships from the Japanese. So, I have wondered if tanks ever use smoke screens to hid themselves from the enemy ?
I miss my tank. “On the way!”
OH PLEASE! SPARE ME THE HYPE!!
A TANK'S STRENGTH IS ITS CREW
They will be replaced by no pay robots, just like McDonald’s employees
lemme see you sit in a T-62 and try and fight an Abrams
Nothing beats a German Leopard
The challenger 2 matches them all then some
@@sopissedoff good joke
@@Schinderhannes69 no joke ,the chally 2 is the real deal 🇬🇧🇺🇦♥️
Sure as hell didn't scare anyone who was already willing to strap bombs to themselves and take out those tanks
Keep telling yourself that American weaponry is so great
And by the way, a whole lot of these weapons were left behind for the same people who were never afraid of them
It is the best tank in the world against Afghan farmers wearing sandals, but not against real armies.
still lost in afghan
No tank is invincible.
leopard 2 is best tank at this point
No, they still don't fix the vulnerable hull ammo storage.
The hull ammo storage really hurts survivability even with the unsensitive ammo its still libel to emulate the russains when struck
Don’t make them have to call ABRAMS it’s over lol
The worlds best Tank? Leopard II enters the Chat.
Tested and proven. What did your big Cat do? Put beer on its turret?
@@DOI_ARTS to be fair that was pretty awesome
@@DOI_ARTS Yes? How else do you do a beer run during the middle of battle?
Yeah, but it drove around with a beer glass balanced on its barrell. That said, i wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either the Leopard, or the Abrahms.
@@FunningRast ask Russian infantry. They know all about drinking and fighting. Some even gone blind from poorly made alcohol in Ukraine.
greatest tank in hollyweird movies
World best coffin
That fits the t80 well
Title: why you should fear the abrams
First example: mad drift skills
Well it sure did well in Vietnam. The Leopard is the world’s best tank.
The Abrams entered service five whole years after the Vietnam War ended.
This is like a 12 year olds school project level.
Best clown tank in the world ❤❤❤
M1 abrams holds the clown tank title, but the shit tank title belongs to the t80.
WTF did I just hear! This tank has a range of 250 miles and has a 500 gallon fuel tank. Isn't that like half a mile per gallon.
2 iteration? 1st M1 then IPM1 and then M1A1 (also M1A1HC) and Then! M1A2 (then SEPV1, SEPV2, SEP3)
In my opinion the Leopard 2A7 is better, not even mentioning the Rheinmetall Panther
Greatest tank in ideal conditions against weak enemy.
It foght 20 years of urban and large scale tank offensives. It can't be more battle tested
@@rodgermurphy5721 Now it's the time to prove himself, we will se what will happen. UKR is a totally different ball game , winter froze, mud and strong opponent with capable army like never before. There is no armored vehicle on this world immune to missile, drone or guided artillery munition.
@@branko917 Abrams doesn't have to prove squat.,..it already did! Unlike Russian tanks which proved to be driving gasoline cans
@@rodgermurphy5721Abrams and his crews will squat and crap themselves in UKR like nazis and their collaborators did during WW2. Maybe they sunk in mud like German tanks did during battle of Kursk. For your information, Abrams power plant, Honeywell AGT1500 is a real gas guzzler, gas turbine is less fuel efficient then piston ICE engine so I cannot understand what are you talking about. Unless Abrams have some secret USS enterprise shield installed it will be just another target practice for RU and it will rust like any other destroyed army equipment. Good luck with Abrams shitty tank.
@@branko917 At this point you can only LAUGH when russia boasts militarily! You are cannon fodder waiting to die for putlers ego
Leopard 2 enters the room wining and saying:..but everybody keept telling me I was the best and I believed it,why are people so cruel? said the Leopard 2 and exited the room heart broken and crying inconsolably..
Far Better than a sports car 😂
It gets beaten in tank competitions regularly.
“Best” vs guys with Ak47
The French Leclerc and German Leopard 2 maybe compete with the Abrams for the top spot, but the Abrams X would hands down be the best if it were ever built, which right now we really don't need to.
@@togytogathan1302 abram x is just tank from 1980 with crewless turret, still burn the same
Yeah its hard to fight an enemy when they hide in another country
Yeah its hard to fight an enemy when they hide in another country
Yemeni rebels torched the Saudi A1s so there's that.
Pretty much the King Tiger of modern times
The king tiger was pretty shit
@@btratemylegs.6342 but the Abrams isn’t but the king tiger was ass bad comparison
The challenger 2 is still king
@Jardel it had low production numbers, bad automotive components, for example, the hl230 engine that was used had a chance to backfire and start a fuel fire, the turret was cramped, and the transmission was overstressed by the crazy weight. All it had was it’s great gun, that could kill any allied tank, the only problem was if the unreliable tank could even make it to the fight without breaking down. Also the armor wasn’t great because of poor weld quality and less effective metals used to make the armor.
@Jardel wasn’t it the m26 Pershing the best?
What happens when they meet Kornet? Call in the scrappers.
“FEAR ME”
- M1 Abrams 2022
"The only thing they fear is you'' - Doom
Theaters of war around the world - Peace my friend, take a deep breathe...
Didnt know I should fear tanks
Insurgents in Iraq used to destroy those big metal sheets with RPG's.
Insurgents can destroyed anything. This is not a weapons systems to fight insurgents this is a tank to destroyed enemy tank and occupy the land. Tell your insurgents to fight a conventional war with tanks and let's see how long they last.
@@totoitekelcha7628 I can understand you dumbness in obvious common sense. A tank is a protective equipment used protect soldiers as they assault the opponent. It's not in any military manual that if an insurgent comes with RPG, don't bring the tank and others bring RPG as well. That's dumb. If the opponent has a RPG, you bring a best protective gear that can handle the RPG plus an RPG or a tank gun to eliminate the opponent without taking any damages. A war is not a game that you chose how someone will fight you. If you bring a tank, if a slingshot can take out a tank then fine. The outcome is what matters.
Am pretty sure I fear every kind of tank 😬😳😬
she will be really tested now , but they will arrive when it is too late . they have to wait until the ground is dry, so that is already a disadvantage of that heavy tank
Abrams is build like tank..💪
3 gallons of jet fuel per mile is probably one of the worst points this tank has. Oh and the jet engine exhaust lights up thermal imagery like a massive bonfire.
There is nothing to fear. When there is so much talk before seeing its true performance.
Lol okay Mr. Louis "Russian Troll" Tan.
@@SexyVistaNerd Bro, we saw the destruction of Abrams tanks in Iraq, even in Yemen. stop suck the ***** of america. you have to accept that the power of the countries in the war is very close.
Except we did see it’s performance… in the Middle East where they absolutely shredded you and your friends
@@waltertheterrible6062 My friend, I live in Iran & let me tell u, We are the ones who made the war expensive for America. We are the same people who soaked you in fear when we took you hostage in the Persian Gulf. We are the ones who acquired military technology in just 30 years without anyone giving us military technology, and our cheapest missiles and drones can destroy the US billion dollar ship. We are the same power that America and NATO are afraid to enter into a direct war with Unlike other Middle Eastern countries. We are the ones who helped our neighboring countries that were crushed as you say. We are the next power of the world order along with other powers. deal with it.
@@alikennyj3148 there's no "we", you are just a pawn of your authoritarian government.
To anyone saying "This tank only runs of jetfuel, so where are you gonna get it in war?" The M1 Abrams literally runs on anything flammable, even your plain old diesel!
We need an Abrams Leopard. 😂
you guys all forgetting about the new Panther KF51. It will be the new king of tanks.
a drone makes them useless
It's true.They are used now only when you have(or have no choice) to go dark and are going against an army with equal drone strength.Then it goes to the ground.Drones are the future of warfare
As with every other tank on earth.
Drones don't make tanks useless in the slightest this is either ignorance or cope for your country making shit tanks
The drones destroys every tank in the world, so the drones are the currently the king of the battle field
😂you don’t know shit boy hell you probably haven’t even been in the military
Why you should be afraid...because with the right crew one of these can drop multiple tanks in no time whatsoever. Add into it the rounds we play with, like the shotgun round we got in Iraq, yeah don't fuck with this bad boy. Best days in the Army were out at gunnery having fun with platoon and crew. Best steaks I've ever eaten were after qualifying on table 8.
Russian tanks could do the same and more easily (autoloader and a generally better idea on how to make tanks), but you don't see it because Russian soldiers are barely qualified to even walk
@tuluppampam on the auto loader, there's a problem compared to human loaders. We load faster. Average load time on the auto is 5-7 seconds or longer. The average time for a human loader is anywhere between 1.5- 3 seconds.
As to the type of tanks, yeah, not really worried since they have been getting hammered by the Ukrainians, and half are broken to begin with. I'm still not worried about Russian tanks.
@@alexanderroloff8093 that's just not true. Autoloaders load faster than humans, but they tend to bring other complications, which is why they're not as widespread (source: Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a valid source because it provided them in this case)
They make security lower, are prone to breaking, may require the gun to be brought to a neutral position (but given how quickly guns move nowadays it's almost not a problem in time), which might not be great if one wishes to maintain the same exact aim, and more
They also bring advantages: they allow for faster firing, they allow tanks to be smaller, and there's no longer a need for a manual loader, which either makes them able to support the rest of the crew (perhaps rotating shifts, allowing for operations all day) or just deletes them from the tank
@tuluppampam Wikipedia isn't reliable on this. I was a tanker for 13yrs and I watched people (including me) load faster than auto loaders. Again humans can load faster than an auto. Watched in Fort Carson and again in Iraq when they got the 72s.
@@alexanderroloff8093 why would countries build tanks with autoloaders if they don't even load faster? If Wikipedia isn't correct, please edit it and make sure to add your references (personal experience doesn't count unless it's like an interview or something)
But autoloaders are definitely faster, else they wouldn't have been developed for over 80 years
They also tend to become faster with bigger shells (surprise! The heavier the shell, the longer it'll take to load properly, and the fewer you can load before becoming tired), when their advantage becomes significant
All I can find on the internet shows that autoloaders are faster in combat situations, as humans aren't machines, but the extra set of hands and eyes for the crew can be very important
Your opinion is one of the many I can find, and, given the rest I've seen, you seem to go against the majority. If this were a moral question it'd be lovely to discuss more in detail, but here we're trying to define a more general idea behind the speed of autoloaders, which is clearly objective and measurable. I simply cannot find anything suggesting autoloaders to be slower than humans, except if the human is loading in what is essentially a perfect situation (i.e. the tank is still and their not in combat, while just trying to dish out as many shots as possible), while autoloaders become quicker in combat and movement (not by a lot, but even 2 seconds can be the difference between returning home or not). Autoloaders also become a lot faster with artillery (because those shells are big), but I was considering tanks, so I don't care
Sickkk drift in the beginning!
Call me crazy but i am afraid of all tanks
Even of the Venezuela tanks?
Unpopular opinion: Future iterations of the Abrams should not include an auto-loading system. More moving parts means more potential mechanical issues that could be critical to the survival of the crew. However, a 19-year-old Loader fueled by Red Bull and Nicotine doesn't jam.
Amazing to see the US giving Ukraine 31 of these 60 ton freedom givers 🙌
Do not forget to add that this is freedom in the American way. And it comes in the form of bombing and tanks that shoot at houses. In Iraq, you freed from 750 to 1 million 200 thousand from life in this world. The same thing is being done in Ukraine by pitting the Slavic people and solving their problems with someone else's hands. Should I tell you who benefits from it ?
Why is that amazing
@@wfwfewfds yes, Abrams tanks helped Kuveit, thank you USA
@@wfwfewfds I had a stroke trying to read this. Proof reading your comment would’ve done tons for your message
Did you really think the west has a clean conscience in this? 😂
How does it do in the freezing mud with untrained crews with angry Russians trying to blow it up .We will see???
Best tank?! Is that a joke?
Outside the US Army, this is possibly the worst tank of our time.
Unlike European and Russian tanks, it requires a huge supply and repair base.
It has never been used in modern warfare, and any attempts to use a tank in conditions where the enemy even has an old ATGM ended in losses.
You spelled Ariete and Arjun wrong.😂
You’re goddamn right
The Ukranians need this Abrams along with the Leapord2, and Challenger2.
Indeed. The three best MBTs on the planet. They would eat Russian armor for lunch.
It would take 6 months, minimum, just to be basically proficient.
Challenger 2 has good armor but that's about it. The gun isnt great, no CITV, and a myriad of other issues that other tanks have remedied. It's a good tank, but there are better ones out there. Also pretty sure the UK wouldnt sell them.
@@classicgalactica5879 thing is M1 abrams are expensive the price of one abrams is the same as 3-4 t90s and around 2 t14 armata’s
General Petraeus said the Ukraine does not have the capabilities to use the M1. They are complicated and heavy. For example they don't have loaders that can carry them, they don't know to maintain the turbine, etc etc.
They are better served with the Soviet equipment. The Germans Army agrees with this assessment.
Modern warfare is won by perfect logistics, excellence in reconnaissance, and brave people.
Idk to me tanks feel like a thing of a past
Well, we’re going to find out soon if it really is the greatest tank in the world. I sure hope I is. There’s going to be some extensive battlefield testing in Ukraine. Can’t wait to see what it can do against beat up T72s in the Donbas. I think they’ll do well. Slava Ukraine
Not very extensive considering they're only sending a few dozen sometime after the war has been won.
They can all be taken out with a simple drone strike. One drone puts a laser on the target, the other drone fires a missile that follows the laser.
Russia is resorting to 19th Century engineering these days. Those drones you mention, they're ours.
as if Russia has that lolololol
Exactly where has this been used against a modern battle tank?
I dont know about modern, but it did really well against the Iraqi s