Dalek's video: th-cam.com/video/7gSiRZNtI-A/w-d-xo.html And since people are apparently confused by this; the title is very clearly in reference to the XM1 program specifically. This is not a "M1 Abrams > Leopard 2" video. If it was, the operative word of the title would be the present tense "beats", not the past tense "beat."
The Abrams X retains a 120mm caliber main gun, do you think they will go for a 130mm like Rheinmetall or a 140mm like Nexter in the future, as the same question of growth potential is back on the table ?
I think many people get too held up on “The Best Tank” when each one is designed for different desires and usage. There’s a reason the US pours money into the Abrams and chose it as a platform. The US does care about having everything serve them best, so there’s going to be clear reasons for decisions.
How is using gas turbine with bad air filtration in the FUKING DESERT with sand the best decision Gas turbine is best descision for Arctic cold environment for northern Russia.
I find it crazy the M1 Abrams is 50 years old, that would be like using a panther tank in the 90s, shows how far tank development went during the cold war but its kinda faltered a little now.
Hard to upgrade a tank a lot when the most common threat it faces (50 yo RPG’s) haven't changed in half a century. If there’s a minor land war between let’s say Israel and Iran, one backed with new American tanks the other new Russian tanks, I think we would see both sides realize flaws in their designs and new stuff drawn up and built really fast.
Aha! You would think that. But the fact is, we have become too good at tank design. Remember the M1911? The pistol that was adopted in... 1911? Yeah to this day we still use the same short-recoil operation design in almost every pistol chambered in 9mm and larger. It's not that we started sucking at gun design, it's just we found the most efficient design available (META, if you will) for handgun design, and we've just tinkered on it for 110+ years and continuously improved it. Same for tanks, we've started to reach the point where we've gotten so good at it that it's getting hard to make giant improvements, just little ones that can be even done in upgrade kits. (THAT IS, unless you are Russia. They're kinda... special. Developmentally delayed, if you will.)
@@g.williams2047 Let's not forget that pretty much everything is different in SEP V3 from what it was in M1. Abrams got upgraded, T72/80/90 too... but not that much - especially now lacking high-tech parts. Russians have T14 though... but it's hard to believe stats given on paper.
Not quite the same tank. While overall form is the same, there is plenty different where it counts. Armour isn't the same as what it started off with advances in composites, add-on packages, better terminal effects understanding to not only improve overall protection but to face changing threats. You have advanced optics, gun stabilisation, remote weapon stations, hard/soft kill systems, threat detectors/counter measures, computer targeting, integrated battlefield information in every tank. Bigger gun, better ammo. Better engine. 50 years of institutional knowledge has improved effectiveness. As for thee the likes of T14, given it only have enough for parades, it would have to be some kind of super tank with the best crew ever to match the numbers advantage that far older tanks would represent let alone an M1 or ATGM behind every hill. The thing is that if the T14 is actually that "Good" countries would be lining up to buy it. Due to the lack of orders *Insert reason here* the Russian government can't afford it as they can't scale the cost and they don't believe in it enough to buy enough themselves to get the unit cost down. The paper spec for the T14 might as well be fan fic given how absurd they are.
It hasn't faltered it's just become far harder to advance now because the tank is at the cutting edge of the technology it uses and thanks to the future proof design of modern tanks, most things even major components like armament and powertrain can be swapped out for the latest and greatest quite easily so they are always up to date It's like the current smart phone market how it slows simply because the Industry is now at the bleeding edge of the tech they use and most major upgrades have already been done at least for now
Tanks are developed to meet specific needs and criteria. The M1 is the perfect example, much as the M4 Sherman was for its era. And when those choices are made, they are made knowing what the effects will be or if there is the ability to upgrade and improve in the future.
The M4 was good enough to defeat the vast majority of threats it encountered. It was cost effective enough to be produced in large quantities without crippling the economy of the nation that built it. It was reliable and maintainable enough to serve on literally every continent on the planet except Antarctica, often a long long way away from support facilities or the factories that built it. What more do you want from a tank?
Doctrin would play a major role too. Germany just needed a tank that can duell other tanks, there wasn't a need for resisting ATGM teams on Fulda gap. US needed a well rounded tank for a lot of scenarios and then ATGMs are really much more common then other MBTs. Every country produces the best tank that they can. Thinking otherwise would mean some random armchair general is much smarter then the defense ministry of a whole country. Which clearly is very unlikely. Even something as a cheap upgrade as T-72B3 mod 2016 is the best solution for the given resources and necessary capabilities. It just seems that the resources were clearly not enough to make a good product, but that isn't always the fault of the designers.
There is a simple answer why abrmas was chose "its american designed and built". If u look at NATO standardization (especially how USA dealt with a united rifle round that was already developed and nearly adopted by 4 european nations) most have come down to USA equipment or rounds as USA never likes to use any other natiosn equipment (only if its wastly superior to their own and wil force domestic variant with their economic might).
@@nathaneddy502 user wise. The US alone still has more Abrams in storage than Leopards was ever build. But maybe the it speaks for itself that the Abrams basically lost any major competition when it came to buyers to the Leo. 2 lol
@@ijn4438 U didnt get the point clearly (ofc USA would have local production). It didnt mater to USA/Pentagon/Commision that it would be built in USA, as it wasnt USA designed after the failure of MBT-70 project, they couldnt go and say the German design was more "moderately" succcesful in duties.
Side armor is actually a very important thing for tank survivability as if an artillery shell lands just near the tank, the crew can simply die because of the shrapnel
Russian tanks have more side armor on paper, but Nato tanks have historically been ridiculously more durable in comparison. There's dozens of videos of Abrams tanks shrugging off side shots from RPGs
The Leopard and Abrams are both very good tanks, idk why people can't agree that they where made for different types of combat and roles, along with expectations. It's like trying to compare the M4 Sherman to the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther. The M4 was made to be smaller in every aspect, (less armor smaller gun, etc.) to be shipped across the world if needed. The Panther didn't need to be shipped across oceans, only by trains when needed, and majority of the time they would drive a short distance to the battle field so they could be bigger, have more armor and a bigger gun. Same with the Leopard and Abrams. The USA wanted a tough tank with lots of armor, along with it being slower. The Germans wanted a tank for potential war in Europe. So the Leopard naturally had to be lighter to cross more bridges, and be more mobile. I love both in their own ways. P.S. , Spookston, would you mind making a video on the Kanpfpanzer-51?
There is also the aspect of what they are expecting as opposition, Germany would obviously prioritize tank battles as the Soviet/Russia went heavy on them. USA would obviously prioritize a "balanced" tank since its expect to fight all over the world against different doctrines. This kinda applies to the M4 and Panther of your example quite well too.
@@LtAlguien the M1 and Leo 2 were both made with fighting the Warsaw pact in mind. The US just saw the threat ATGMs would play a lot sooner then Germany did because believe it or not the US rarely went beyond the western hemisphere, Europe and east Asia during the cold war
@@shadewolf0075 ... Did u just say that USA saw the ATGM threath sooner... when Leopard 1 had no armors specifically bcs it saw ATGMs and other man portable anti tank weapons so saturated in the battelfield that it was designed as a moblie gun carrier that could at max suffer a 30mm autocannon from the front.
@@woldemyr5234 the US during the M1's development was concerned with ATGMs like the Kornet and anti-tank rockets. Granted it's not designed for a javelin or Nlaw but yes the Abrams was made to protect its crew from ATGMs in use during the 80s
You mixed up some things. Sherman was made for reliability, comfort and on some stages for better anti-tank probabilities. Panther was made for making crew blind and demoralised by cramped space, also frying their asses with it's stupid transmission
Meanwhile australia picked the Abrams because it was the one that was in stock at the time, we would’ve had to pre-order chally 2s or wait until Germany whipped up enough spare parts for our batch of Leo 2s. The US just so happened to have everything ready when we went shopping
@@Abizinator hell, we got hulls in desert fields just so that the factory workers wouldn't be unemployed. Just get the wiring and post hull builders and that order will be done before a year is over.
And then we had them modified so with air conditioning so now they have a nice cool temperature of the ambient air outside. 'Oi Bruce, what's the temp outside? 41 mate. Fuck me dead, couldn't they install something better?'
This whole thing (sort of) reminds of the NATO PDW cartridge trials with the FN 5.7mm and the H&K 4.6mm. The FN round performed better overall, the Germans threw a fit and the whole PDW standardization thing went tits up.
Except that wasn't the whole reason an official PDW cartridge was adopted. There's a video on Forgotten Weapons, but to sum it up, the intention was to create a cartridge that can penetrate the CRISAT armor used by the VDV paratroopers under set parameters- Issue is, neither of them did this. For all the strengths of either cartridge both having more ergonomic firing platforms, it doesn't justify the extremely high cost of adopting a round that doesn't even do succeed in that particular parameter, it would not have been cost-effective. That and, the US, the biggest member of NATO, wasn't at all interested, adopting a new cartridge that doesn't do more than what's already available, when only a few countries were interested, wasn't feasible. As a result, both are essentially boutique rounds.
in what world the 5.7 perform better? and 4.6 came way later into the game + the calibers where made to be able to penetrate armours that 9x19 and .45 couldnt and AP SX for the MP7 outperforms 5.7 SS190 in armour penetration power.
@@AdlumairsoftIt's common knowledge that the 5.7x28mm was the better round. It's carrying far more kinetic energy on target than the much tinier 4.6x30mm round.
That actually kind of lines up. 58 metric tons converts to about 63.93 US tons, and the combat loaded Leopard 2 was 63 US tons loaded which would have been within the limits if the US wanted metric tons.
@@CliffordChang-v8c so in other words most of the issues regarding perceived shady actions on germanys part are likely just the US not using fucking metric
@@cynicalfox190 Or the Germans not understanding they are selling to a country that doesn't use fucking metric and forgot. But based on what I heard it went deeper then then that.
People compare tanks by seeing which is better at killing tanks, not by if they do their job well. Challenger series is a perfect example of a “bad” tank that is used in a way that negates its weakness and was picked because of its pretty significant advantages (like use of HESH, given its an Infantry support tank by design). Something something German superiority compared to a Cromwell and Sherman.
I mean the gulf war literally saw large scale tank battles. Not to mention Israel's wars with the Arab coalition. It's not like tank on tank combat is anywhere near dead. It's just that western foes have literally been badly equipped guerrilla fighters and not formal armies.
The Challengers "advantages" are mostly Inflated by british fanboys tho. Hesh was already obsolete when the tank was designed and the rifled gun from the Challenger 1 was kept to cut costs.
Loving the videos Spook! With regards to suggestions for new ones, I think it'd be cool if you brought a full lineup of a few tanks and other vehicles used by south Africa in War Thunder. Olifant, Rooikat, Ratel, etc. I feel that many of these tanks get a bit overlooked in the game. Especially the Olifant.
Hey. If you ever talk about new prototypes and stuff, id be curious about your opinion on the E-MBT, a mix of the hull of the Leo and the turret of the Leclerc, although that turret is barely recognizable.
I always wondered what the point of that was. Sure, the Leo could use better turret armor, but is it sensible to make an entire new generation of MBT from existing MBTs? Surely it would be better to make a new tank if you are going that far.
@@pilferedserenity1570 exept that it’s unlikely the current MGCS project will give us anything for about amour decade or 2. The EMBT would at best be a stopgap and a way to test new techs for the MGCS
Spookston should teach a online class of his own I feel like it would be a really cool thing and if it costed money I would pay for it just to learn. Thank you for another informational video spookston I always love watching these and learning something new
“The Best Tank” debate usually fails when people forget the doctrines in which the tank was designed for…my go-to is the JGSDF’s tanks and their usage for an auto-loader and hydropneumatic suspension. Doctrine is where people always forget the main purpose and design of the vehicle. Air, ground, or water. From there, it can be defined as good or bad. My ¢2.
Exactly. It's like a modern day version of the M4 Sherman debate. People look at the paper stats and think that's all that matters. They see a carefully compiled montage of tanks of "Nation X" getting blown up and conclude that the tank sucks because it got blown up. Ignoring the fact that tanks have never been invulnerable
Could you possibly do a video on the abramx or more specifically survival cell hulls and how they can be best implemented. To me and engineer it seems like a nightmare to both have a lot of armor to protect the crew but also be forward enough in the hull to have escape hatches along with a turret and engine assembly behind you.
I would like to do a “B-But America Bad, Other Country Good” joke but it’s like you said, tank fan boys don’t realize that Countries (mostly the ones that can build their own tanks) usually go for what they want, it’s why I doubt “They didn’t choose X because of 1 reason” claims the more I get older when it comes to military questions. 1 reason is the easiest to understand but is also the most bare bones and quickest way for someone to dismiss the entire argument.
The M1 went with the 105mm because the new DU rounds were already entering war stocks in Europe for the M60 tank. The M60 would be in service for many years while the M1 was being fielded so they had to serve side-by-side. As noted, the US 105mm was comparable to the British and German 120mm. The M1 program knew that would not last, but they were colonels and generals tasked with defending Western Europe NOW, not in five or ten years, so they went with the 105mm now with the plan to upgrade to the 120mm in the near future.
Good video on this often-misunderstood aspect of the M-1's choice as America's tank. In a lot of the testing, the US was simply too trusting of its NATO partner in the trials. As to the turret armor, a US mechanic dropped a heavy clevis against the Leopard turret, and it resonated like a bell. He told the attending General officer who checked this and confronted the German technical reps who finally came clean that the test vehicle was way underweight and had no internal armor plates in the turrets shell. As to the engine, the Germans had a long-standing agreement with MTU Aero Engines to produce all engines of local design. They are very good engines. But for anyone who's ever been around them they are both load and have a resonance that announces their presence long before they show up.
But that is after their modernisation packages, imagine if they started at 70 tonnes their drivetrains would be so underpowered after all the upgrades.
Can you make a video about main differences in tank design between NATO and Russia? It would be interesting to know about main reasons one side makes their tanks different from the other especially now that those designs clash with each other in Ukraine
money and respect for human life. Also not really fair comparison as there's so many types in use there that's it's really hard to tell what aspects of them have won specific engagements- but it seems that ukrainaians are wining due to better oreintation what is where. As one despised by putin's gang russian ex offcicer said "they have an observation drone in each platoon, we have in each company". Also hard to recognise specific types as ukrainians seem to put Kontakt-1 on every single type of tank that did not have any ERA beforehand- so Czech modified T-72's are almost impossible to distinguish from Polish ones (which are infirour in many mechanical aspects but got thermals and BMS installed) unless you have intimate knowlage of how each type of sighting device looks like in each subvariant.
Here are some: Russian tank design enforces a lower weight limit on its designs. This is largely for Logistical and Infrastructure reasons. Abram and Leopard designs have faced issues in the past and present due to their weight. This restriction on weight led to several cascading effects for Russian designs. An earlier adoption of autoloaders. (Saves Weight) An earlier adoption of ERA. (Protection from Shaped Charge weapons, early ERA, without the weight of steel.) When it comes to ammunition stowage, Russians put the ammunition in the safest part of the tank to minimize the chance that it will be hit. (The same place that the M4 Sherman eventually placed its ammunition and became the safest tank of WW2.) Westerners put the ammunition in an extremely dangerous part of the tank that is likely to be hit, but mitigate that with blast doors and blowout panels. Contrary to what some will say, both Americans and Russians put plenty of effort into crew survivability. They just did it in different ways. The Russian method relies on putting the ammunition where it is least likely to be hit in the first place. The Western method relies on the blowout panels and blast doors working as they are supposed to. Neither method is foolproof. Western Tank design tends to focus on bleeeding edge technology with relatively limited production numbers. Russian Tank design tends to focus on "Good Enough" technology that can be mass produced. The West will build a prototype that will test the limits of technology and then put it into production. The Russians will build a prototype that will test the limits of technology, then dial it back a little bit so they are still quite good, but can also afford to crank out 20,000+ of them. There are obviously exceptions for both. Russian designs are focused on tanks being a "Battlefield Bully", where fighting other tanks only happens occasionally. HE-FRAG capability is considered extremely important. Typical Soviet tank loadout was supposed to be about 40% HE-FRAG. Modern Western designs, for lack of a better description, are basically Tank Destroyers. They are focused on the waves of Tank v Tank combat that was supposed to take place in Europe. Their 120mm HE-FRAG capability is effectively non-existent as far as fielded ammunition. Other than SABOT, most Western 120mm tanks only have canister or a slightly modified HEAT shell that gives somewhat improved fragmentation effect. Though 120mm HE-FRAG type shells do exist, they tend to be not wildly fielded. Now, with the impartial facts out of the way, where do I see Western design moving? I honestly see it moving towards Russian tank design philosophy. 70 ton land-ships are becoming a liability. The 40-50 ton weight range looks to be the sweet spot. Actually hitting that weight target will require Western designers to make the same sort of choices that the Russians had to make. Personally, something like the M8 Buford Light Tank scaled up to be a MBT would be a good analogue of where one might see Western MBT design going. Though there are other paths as well.
Russians rely on sovjet technology And the sovjets used cheap light tanks that they could mass produce because they had a lot of manpower but not as strong of an economy Their tank doctrine was based on what worked in ww2 which was quantity over quality During the cold war the sovjets didn’t invest much in tank development because it was already behind america in economy and technology so it considered its rocket and nuclear program to be the most important linchpin of national security
I know this isn't really your typical video topic, but I never fully understood how such thin armor on these modern MBTs can have such great protection against kinetic shells. I mean sure you have angles, but the speed and density of these APFSDS shells are actually insane. Alternatively, you could talk about how spall is formed, because that also doesn't make much sense when you think about the fact that the hole a kinetic shell makes is rather small. Anyways keep up the great work! I love the content
if you look at interior video of both tanks' turrets, it's amazing how much more cramped the Leopard 2 is. And the M1's ammo storage is vastly better both for the ergonomics of getting to it quickly, and far better for survivability due to the isolated ammo compartment with blowout panels.
The Leo2 has ammo and blow out panels in the turret too. The main difference is that it has less shells in the turret and a front hull storage. I think the justification was that the front part, in which the Leo2 stores the hull shells, is very well protected even at the sides, moreso than the Abrams (supposedly, theres no official data). And the Abrams does suffer from a heavier turret, thats likely part of why the US is constantly trying to make the gun lighter, while the Leo2 got a heavier and longer barrel instead. Its all trade-offs in the end. That said, the Leo2 is more cramped than the Abrams? I havent heard that before.
@@taistelusammakko5088let's just say, it fit the Chieftain. Not the tank, the youtuber, who's well over 6 ft tall, and he was extremely comfortable in it.
I definitely appreciate these history oriented videos with mythbusting! I hope to see more Cold War Era vids, like, was the M60 (or Patton series at large) any good in the end? (Ask Israel)
Similar happened with the FN FAL. The US "agreed" to adopt it, but really never did, and having given the US license to the FN FAL to produce it AND export it with basically no financial benefit to FN no matter how many the US made or sold, FN had 0 reason to make the US adopt the FN FAL, so it didn't try very hard when the rifle was trialed. It would've actually been a financial problem for FN, making them weaker when licensing FAL production rights overseas. So when a group of dudes got randomly hyped up about making "the greatest winter rifle ever" while prototyping the M14, and they put a bunch of effort into making those specific rifles (not the entire design) work really well in the cold, and the testing showed those specific rifles superior, the American design got a good chance at winning, and eventually did. People have been crying that the US should've adopted the FAL ever since. But without a rifle as bad as the M14 in service, we never would've gotten the M16 so.... it'd've been worse overall
West Germany had one mission, fight WW III on its doorstep. Giving ground until the rest of NATO could deploy in support of the ground war. The USA also had to fight not only in Europe but South Korea. And be deployable around the world. (that's where the weight came into play, see C-5 aircraft) Think of a sports team that only plays home games. You know the weather and the lay of the land. Leopard 2 is your tank. Abrams only plays away games. Not great in any only place, but can get work done. As for ammo, the USA had a lot of 105mm ammo stockpiled. (from m60) The 120mm was delayed until on the shelf 105mm was used up or sold off.
Can you do a video on the new AbramsX by GD? Its a future Abrams design featuring a crewless turret. I thought that the new Abrams was gonna have a 4 man crew due to the 4 concept designs proposed a little over a year ago, but GD built a "mock up(?)" of this new version, some calling it the potential SEPv4
SepV4 already exists. AbramsX, much like Rhinemetall's new Panther concept - is a paper tank. Both are a collection of ideas and concepts for a future tank program. Neither has anything concrete, as they want those government research dollars/euros first.
Yeah, the MP7 is easier to hide, but it was in no way a tanker crew or back/hind troops main issue weapon. It's round was tiny even compared to the FN 5.7x28mm round and would have shown worse kinetic energy on target. It's a great cqb gun, as is the P90, but not as good of a PDW as the P90 is. It's better for special forces troops who need concealable submachine guns.
The Puma IFV has a bit of a cult following (myself included) and many think this should be at least an interim replacement for the Bradley, yet the US seems to disqualify it, despite great performance in tests. Might be a popular topic.
The US isn't going to adopt it the Bradley while long in the tooth can still do its job and we'd most likely just design a homegrown infantry fighting vehicle
At this point, the idea that the US will adopt a German conceptualized or designed vehicle and vice versa(not counting aircrafts) remains a distant dream
@@adityabora9131 if the u.s. adopt a German ifv it is not going to be the puma it's going to be the lynx and even then it's competing against the cv90 Griffen and redback
I've come back to further s*** on the puma that thing is an overpriced mechanically overcomplicated garbage pile and objectively inferior to the lynx the u.s. is going to adopt a German vehicle it should be the lynx
Wait the thing I don't get about the AV is how was it heavier than a 2A4 which are around 55 tons and not 63? Improvements in the composite armor that made the 2A4 lighter? Or did the AV have additional armor somewhere or something? Also as a Leopard 2 tanker myself, I am properly jealous of the M1 having all of it's ammo behind some kind of blow out panel, while in the Leopard 2 there's a lot of ammo in the hull, like holy shit who thought of doing this so half assed? At the same time I'm glad that I don't hear a constant "WEEEEEEEEEEE" but shit's loud either way so it's just a case of picking your source of tinnitus lmao
Because he's talking about short tons - 63 short tons is about ~57.2 metric tons and the 2AV was a bit overweight, they reduced that by reducing thickness of plates over the engine bay etc.
@@Phoenix.r6 Schweiz, Panzer 87 Leopard 2 WE, domestisches upgrade vom 2A4 der ihn im Innern auf's Level eines 2A5 bringt. Kein neuer Turm, Panzerung etc. tho :(
@@jacobdewey2053 I meant more as in having started to work on the 2AV with the 105mm in mind from the very start, so the FCS and Stabilization would've been designed for the gun at the start
In early 1976, in what was a first for Army vehicle testing, the 2 XM1's - Chrysler and GM - were evaluated at APG, by a board of Armor Officers and NCO's assembled from across CONUS, under the command and control of the Operational Test and evaluation Agency. Both tanks were subjected to some very stringent testing using the M60A1 as the baseline vehicle. The Chrysler was judged the superior of the 2 prototypes. This testing lasted for several months. At the end of the testing, the board was released to it's units. In the Fall of 1976, as many of the same Officers and NCO's were reassembled at APG, at the behest of the German Government, to perform the same testing for the Leopard 2. Same people, same tests. From the perspective of the tankers, the XM1 significantly out performed the Leopard 2. The Project Manager and his engineers did the data assessment but the fact was the Leopard was not on a par with the Chrysler XM1. It was that simple.
i was getting ready to hear more "why tank Y is the best in the world" followed by some Hard fact numbers but i should have known better, this was great.
Great Video! I think a lot of people forget that during the Cold War Germany and the U.S had very different needs. Whereas Germany was very close to Russia basically neighbors the U.S was over 5,000 miles away with oceans between us and Russia, so what we need in a tank was different to what Germany needed and vis-a-versa, not to mention the U.S was pretty much expected to be the main fighting force anywhere outside of Europe if fighting broke out. I'm just glad the Cold War never went Hot and that we got to amazing tank development programs out of it! Can you maybe do a video on French or British MBT development through the Cold War Era?
A LOT of people still hold on to the narrative of the US being biased towards it's own vehicle mainly because a decade earlier, the US took one of the worst decisions in regards to smalls arms development and adoption when they INTERFERED with the FAL project and turned around and adopted the M14 and soon after the M16.
division yeah many people who are big fans of certain weapons or vehicles tend to go nuts whenever the us doesn't pick them to replace whatever. Like for example HK fans hating the fact the US army chose to upgrade the magazines of the M4 because that was the main issue causing the gun to jam more often rather than adopt the HK 416 during the rifle competition that was held some time before the NGSW program
When you look at it on a broad scale, there isn’t currently, “The best tank.” You have to look at each vehicle’s purpose. The U.S. has chosen the Abrams so defiantly because it’s served them the best. Same goes for the German military. If you were to enter a leopard in U.S. service, people may not think the leopard is all too great, and vice versa.
That's cool and all but I find that putting two angry cartoon eye decals will make this tank overwhelmingly superior and give it a huge tactical advantage both in physical combat and psychological
Tank design can be summed up in one saying, “each to there own”. Every country designs there armoured vehicles around there own needs and requirements. Sure some designs are better than others in other countries and scenario’s, but for the country that builds them, they’re great, Merk from Israel is a great example of that.
I'd also point out that in the late 1970s, the US and NATO had massive stocks of 105mm tank ammo, making a wholesale caliber change logistically and fiscally unwise. The US Army was also sour on combustible case ammunition at the time, viewing it as not ready for prime time after the m81/M162 gun-launcher fiasco. The M1's gun trunnions and mount were always designed with upgunning in mind. The Army were already trialling the L44 in 82-83 in the M1E1. M1A1 entered service by 1986, so we're only talking 6 years with the "inferior" gun.
The M68 was retained by the US Army because it was about to adopt the DU "slug" APDSFS M774 which was equal to the 120mm tungsten-steel DM23. The M900 would equal the performance of the DM31, especially with the lengthened M68. The US Army adopted the 120mm Rheinmetall gun after reducing the number of parts by 25% (thus cheaper) as the M256. They did this to exceed the performance of the tungsten-steel DM33 with the DU solid APDSFS M829A1.
People tend to forget that the Chrysler M1 won because both the Leo2 and GM M1 didn't provide enough crew protection with ammo in a non-isolated hull storage.
You don't win wars by having small amounts of amazing bespoke equipment. You win wars by having greater amounts of good equipment and employing said equipment better than the other guy.
Both the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 were a result to the MBT-70 program which Congress cancelled in 1969 because it became too expensive and Congress then approved the XM1.There were two versions___one with a a traditional diesel engine___and the other with a gas turbine engine____the same engine as the Soviet T-80;
Keeping experienced crews alive was very important to America at the time, they were preparing for a war in Eastern Europe against Russia. America needed to give its military every chance at survival because replacing people is expensive when you’re fighting a war half a world away.
Keep in mind that between these trials and the actual fielding of these tanks, the slick M1 would surpass the Leo 2 in KE protection as well. The Swedish trials documents indicate that 80% of the Leopard 2A4's frontal armor (Pakete B) was 350mm. A declassified CIA report puts the M1 at 400mm KE. This doesn't include the M1's UFP which is actually more than 500mm of KE effectiveness.
The first version of the M1 provided 400 mm RHA vs KE as you wrote and 750 mm RHA vs CE, and the Leopard 2 with B technology armor (from 1-5 batch) provided 350 mm RHA vs KE and 700 mm RHA vs CE (RARDE documentation). Leopard 2 with C armor tech ( 6-8 batch ) provided about 420 mm RHA vs KE and 750-800 mm RHA vs CE. We know from the British Army test results that the Leopard 2A4 did not meet their minimum armor requirements, the Abrams did.
@@boxtankgamer6014 Basically the original M1 armor was superior to Leopard 2 with B tech and M1A1HA ( and most likely normal M1A1 1985 too ) with 1 generation DU armor was superior to Leopard 2 with C tech.
People think of tanks as stat cards or in direct comparison on equal footing. It doesnt work that way. The Merkava would be a god awful tank for the Japanese, but its the perfect tank for Israel. The Leo2 and M1 dont have as extreme design and doctrinal differences, but they still need to be taken into account
In the 79's and 80's, the 105 L7gun can fire HESH, HEAT, explosive, smoke and canister (anti-infantry) rounds. The 120 only have explosive rounds on in the 90's. And it's the type of rounds the 105 can fire that the British took so long to get the 120.
I'm almost positive gun movement means it having a degree less of gun expression because otherwise it's superior in "gun handling" to the XM-1 just as the production Leopard 2s are. On the topic of armour and survivability, Spookston really glossed over it but to give a tl;dr - Leopard 2AV in fact did have composite for the turret sides... but! It did not have that composite extend over to the turret rack, which the US viewed as a minus. - Survivability... both tanks had hull racks at the time of testing so in that case they are equal, but as mentioned earlier, 2AV had less armour coverage (no composite side-skirts played a huge role). Judging them as MBTs purely, yes, Leopard 2AV was pretty much a superior vehicle at the time (again, XM-1 protoypes still had ammunition in the hull and much smaller turrets than production versions), but the cost and the fact that Germany was basically biding their time with it (plus some of the comittee guys having taken part in XM-1 program) ruled over it in favour of the XM-1. To fans of the either vehicle, no I'm not saying XM-1 was a worse choice for the US Army, it was better, but the misonception that XM-1 crushed the 2AV in trials and was much better also isn't true.
Your point about survivability is incorrect. Only the GM XM1 had a full-on hull ammo rack, the Chrysler XM1 only had the turret ready rack with a small number of rounds. Round compartmentalization was deemed superior on both XM1 pilots because they had a much larger percentage of their rounds protected by blowout panels. As for gun handling, I don't know how you can so sure of that since the 2AV used different components for that when compared to the production Leopard 2, and the fact that the terminology is so vague.
@@Spookston Incorrect in fact. The Chrysler prototype did in fact have a hull rack, case in point however, it wasn't as big as the other 2 vehicles and was much further in the tank (hidden by more components). Why can I be sure about the gun-handling? Because the 2AV and production version used the same hydraulic system for stabilization, turret rotation et cetera, at no point in any of the documents I own about the Leopard 2AV and Leopard 2A0 did they mention a switch of those - but the fact is that a lot of individuals tend to characterize gun handling with its depression and elevation limits - the usage of gun movement instead of gun handling like more modern sources tend to use (where they actually mention the speed at which the turret and cannon are moved) seems to implicate that it's about depression limit.
@@tomppeli. It does, the point is that a lot of people tend to forget XM-1's had them too (in fact modern ones do have them but they're often used as storage for other things rather than ammunition and are small; 6 rounds in total for the 120mm).
I’ve never heard anyone else say this, but the m1 was designed for the 120, and the 105 was picked for the listed reasons, especially that the 120 had not yet met performance requirements
Polands having alot of trouble with the Leopard series aswell. Not sure why, but German defence companies have alot of toruble dealing with getting products out to consumer in a timely manner. I think it gotten to the point where Poland just needed some sort of tank, and went with the Abrams just because. Its probably got something to do with German bureaucracy bottlenecking the entire industry.
the AbramsX is a tech demo, not a real tank that is going to be produced. The AGT1500 (The Abram's current engine) consumes less fuel actually moving than most traditional diesel engines of tanks in a similar class. Only while idling does it consume more fuel. and in the modern M1 Variants the turbine already has a supplementary electric power system to run the systems while the tank is not moving to address the fuel usage issue.
I do believe Spookston has made a video on the gas turbine in the Abrams. The gist of it was that a gas turbine is basically superior to a traditional turbo diesel setup, the only drawback being idle fuel consumption.
Abrwams has been blown up so many times: Random person Me: Most US Abrams have not And most of the destroyed pictures are from middle eastern countries getting the shitter versions.. using them improperly or fleeing at first contact ISIS got their hands on an Abrams once because the fucking Idiots fighting them Bailed after 1 RPG hit and didn’t even get close to penetrating
The Leo would have been expected to bear the brunt of heavy AFV/MBT on AFV/MBT combat reacting to breakthroughs through a defensive line held mostly by ATGM bearing light infantry, on Day 1 of WW3. Some Abrams would have experienced that, but most would have deployed days or weeks layer in a Reforger type scenario were it was unclear if there would be a war of maneuver across overrun NATO countries, aggressive counterattacks into the Soviet hinterlands, or penetrating a new line beyond the inital line of defense after most the Soviets had been dismounted. So the designs each country picked (less all-round protection, more firepower vs higher mobility and more comprehensive protection) make a lot of sense.
I like the ending, its correct. People often say that the Leopard 2 and the Abrams are "better" than the Challenger 2, saying that its low power-weight ratio and less capable gun make it borderline useless compared to its American and German counterparts. What they don't realise is that those failings are not very significant, its not like comparing a Tiger and an M18 for instance. The Challenger 2 fills a defensive role, sitting in prepared positions, hull down. The Abrams and Leopard 2 sacrifice survivability for greater speed, allowing them to act more aggressively. The tanks are not better in general, but better in specific roles.
@@davidkennedy7743 same thing was done by a bunch of M1's but the point stands, there is no excuse fpr it being shit, mobility is key, and you have to move with the trend, as well as the stupid gun just to use Hesh. But now with the challanger 3 thats going in the right direction, better engine and new gun. But the chassis is just shit
That's because people like to laugh at the Challenger I admittedly like to do that and survivability the Abrams was designed for survivability it's the only NATO tank to feature blowout panels
I personally don't understand why people think the US should have chosen a tank from another country as their main battle tank the US is a big nation that is more than capable of creating their own military equipment it would be nonsensical for them to rely on another nation for a tank
I've been posting comments about this in his videos and yup, everything I got were some likes and people talking about it but I don't think Spook saw it. I really don't know what's going on but let's just wait and see
Osório, what a legend. I have a teacher that suposelly worked on the Osório at my university. It suposelly beat the Abrams on tests but wasn't bought by the Brazilian goverment and neither by the Arabs.
I think with all of the upgrades the M1 got (esp 105->120) it is dubious that the M1 would actually cost less than a mature leopard 2 design over the lifecycle of the tank. That being said, it is almost certain the M1 is better suited for the type of combat it actually saw even if a Leo 2 would be better in the Fulda gap.
except that the leo2 design wasn't a mature design back in the 1970's when the program was evaluated so this comment is pointless. The 2A5 didn't enter service until 1995 by which point the M1A2 had already been in service for 3 years (with production for it beginning in 1986). also the leo 2 has costed more over it's entire service life so again I really doubt this to be true. leopard fans really reaching in this comment section
@@jacobdewey2053 M1A2 never began production in 1986, that's an internet hoax. The budget for production wasn't even there till 1991 and the congress only ordered evaluation of the design in 1990. It is also a flat out lie that Leopard 2 costed more over its entire service life; literally the first thing many users cite is the cost-effectiveness of the tank and lower fuel usage. It's telling that you're going for "leopard fans" type of argument there, makes you look like an "abrams fan" who is geniuenly angry at people liking another vehicle.
@@eyyze It seems you are correct it didn't begin in 1986 so I will concede that although it really wasn't relevant to the point I was making, it was just an addition. The budget for production wasn't there till FY1991 but it was approved for production in 1990 according to the information that I can find online and the point remains that it did enter service in 1992. I have found other information that states the Leo 2A5 didn't enter service until 1998 rather than 1995 which would be a full 6 years (though I can't really evaluate the source for either claim so I'll leave it at 1995). I will concede that the Abrams likely doesn't have a lower life cycle cost than the leo 2 but it is hard to find exact numbers given that most of the new tanks are upgrades of existing frames so it's hard to know exactly how much each has cost, especially when there have been around 3 times as many abrams built as leopard 2's. Either way, I'll just assume you're correct. I will point out however that fuel usage is less of an issue since the addition of the APU into the abrams. I'll concede the "leopard fans" comment was out of line. I just have a hatred for wehraboos and they tend to also be fanboys of anything german, even if primarily nazi german stuff. I don't dislike anybody for liking the Leopard 2, it's a great tank. I just hate tiger fanboys who circlejerk "german technological superiority"
@@jacobdewey2053 The *first* Leopard 2A5 was delivered in 1995 according to every website that I can find and is reasonably beliveable, you are probably thinking of ammunition (DM53 APFSDS) or when the prototypes of the Leopard 2A6 started appearing (both in 1998). The reason why there's been 3 times as many M1s produced is simple - US has a much stronger economy and a much bigger army which means they need more vehicles unless they like being underequipped. The APU is more iffy; on SEPv1 it would last only for 20 minutes to my knowledge and on SEPv2 it was replaced by batteries that would last 30 minutes on a good day. The problem is that tanks spend a lot more times at idle than that, this isn't as much of a problem for diesel vehicles since their idle fuel consumption is significantly lower. And before, no, I'm not shaming the M1s driving unit and while the APU helps, it isn't a problem solver, that is why the recently revealed AbramsX had ditched the gas turbine for a diesel-electric hybrid engine, at the time of M1 being designed, the turbine made sense since it gave a boost on lower speeds and had reasonable fuel consumption *when moving*, but nowdays a lot of tanks are used as stationary support platforms, there the fuel usage of M1s turbine is unbearable.
"Leo 2 would be better in the Fulda gap" Protection: Between the trials talked about in the video and the actual fielding of these tanks, the slick M1 would surpass the Leo 2 in KE protection as well. The Swedish trials documents indicate that 80% of the Leopard 2A4's frontal armor (Pakete B) was 350mm. A declassified CIA report puts the M1 at 400mm KE. This doesn't include the M1's UFP which is actually more than 500mm of KE effectiveness. M1 stores nearly all its ammo in the turret bustle protected by blowout panels (the 6 hull rounds are seldom filled and also have a blowout panel), the L2 stores most its ammo in an unprotected hull compartment. NBC was less sophisticated on early M1s but crews were trained to fight MOPP'd up. Firepower: The Leopard 2 had a marginally better gun for anti tank work but the Soviet tests with DM23 had shown that the 105mm was perfectly adequate against T-64/72/80 armor at normal combat ranges. Once M833 comes around and then the M1A1 (M829) the Germans will basically be a generation behind in sabot performance until the L/55. FCS is roughly similar; M1 had a thermal sight from the jump which is a decisive edge but Leo got one not long after. M1 had a crosswind sensor but of dubious use at likely WW3 ranges. Mobility: Swedish trials concluded that the Leo 2IMP and the M1A2 were roughly equal in mobility. The original M1 and Leo 2A0/1 weighed a lot less but the M1 was still lighter, had a marginally more powerful engine, and better torque in the low gears. I'll concede that the ATG-1500 was very thirsty when idle but that's the cost of having a highly reliable, true multi fuel engine. Anyways by basically no standard was the Leo 2 "better" for the Fulda gap. The M1 was simply the best tank on the planet in 1979/80 and still managed to be cheaper.
M1 is best Tank, for USA Challanger is best Tank, for UK Leopard is best Tank, for Germany Merkava is best Tank, for Israel Leclerc is best Tank, for France and the Hylux is Best Tank, for anyone on a Budget
Hey, Spook, I had a bit of an idea for a video. How do you feel about a video that would be comparing the Abrams and the T-72s/T-80s, based on the battle effectiveness, or lack thereof, we've seen in them today? As, imo, MBTs nowadays cannot really be compared effectively as they almost never see combat, but the Abrams and T-80s have seen combat against similar foes and forces(Guerilla warfare and insurgency type combat styles). I think it'd be a neat video, and someone as research intuitive and entertaining as yourself would make it pretty good imo
The Abrams is actually a good show piece how to not design a tank. It isn't as appealing to the export market as for example the Leopard, the soviet/russian T-Series or even in recent years with the K2 catching up in terms of interest. The engine choice was ridiculous considering the fuel consumption during idling. The lack of an autoloader is a significant drawback as well, although shared with the Leopard. And after seeing how the Abrams faired in several middle eastern conflicts, it seems rather vulnerable to late war shaped charges and newer munitions as well. Designs like the K2, Leclerc or Type 10 are a good look into the future of western tank design.
Failed, in the same way pretty much every other export tank 'fails' in those Middle Eastern conflicts? There are just as many videos of Leopards going up in smoke as Abrams, and even moreso for the Russian export tanks. When your vehicle looses it's more effective armor layout and is given lesser trained and experienced crews, as well as what is essentially full autonomy within the country it was exported to, it's not going to fair nearly as well. This is true for pretty much any export vehicle, not only the Abrams. These tanks when under their developing country's use are often proven to be effective and efficient. Especially for the Abrams, even if now it's age is really starting to show. The biggest reason the Abrams isn't a very popular export vehicle is almost certainly because it's just pretty expensive, to buy and maintain. Is this an issue? Yes. Is it an issue the United States can deal with, because it has the funds to keep the vehicle operational? Yes. Has the tank proven itself to be an effective main battle tank for the United States? Absolutely. A new version of the Abrams is in development through General Dynamics - which is much in line with the other western tanks you listed. An incredible reduction in fuel usage (around half, if I recall correctly), an autonomous turret, a roof mounted turret gun, reduced weight, autoloader, and a significantly smaller stature than the usual Abrams. Of course, it's not been fielded yet, it's only a demo - probably gonna be few years, if not longer, before we see any final verdict on whether or not it's tech will get adopted - but it's certainly revealing that the issues with the Abrams, a lot of people are aware of, and are willing to fix. Those issues however do not hold the tank back to such a significant degree that it's a 'show piece how to not design a tank'.
The Abrams is a tank specifically for what the US wanted and needed at the time, this didn’t have much consideration for export, this they kept their own homegrown tank. I don’t see any particular faults with the Abrams that actually hinder what the US military wants
,,The engine choice was ridiculous considering the fuel consumption during idling" - The US Army preferred the gas turbine over diesel. Today, Abrams has an APU, so fuel consumption is significantly lower at idle. ,, It isn't as appealing to the export market as for example the Leopard, the soviet/russian T-Series or even in recent years with the K2 catching up in terms of interest." - This is not an export tank, it was designed during the Cold War for the US Army against Soviet armored vehicles. Also Leclerc aka "good look into the future of western tank design." Has a much worse export record than Abrams, and on tests in Greece, Abrams surpassed Leclerc, and the British and Swedes assessed Abrams better than the French design. ,,The lack of an autoloader is a significant drawback as well, although shared with the Leopard." - not a drawback, but a different design solution. 4 crewman is an additional pair of eyes and hands, he will help with maintenance work. ,,And after seeing how the Abrams faired in several middle eastern conflicts, it seems rather vulnerable to late war shaped charges and newer munitions as well." - Theoretically each tank is vulnerable to modern ATGM's, the thickest armor only protects the frontal 60 degrees arc. That's why APS was invented... and the USA integrates the Trophy with Abrams. Abrams did very well in Both wars in Iraq while being used by US forces. Different story is Yemen and arabs...
General dynamics released a new video about their new m1 abrams. It’s pretty wild. Think t14 armata but as an m1 abrams. I would love to see a video about it.
@@Lxcx311 If that tank doesn't go the way of the MBT-70. However, Germany is cooperating with France on this vehicle...and France is an absolute pain in the ass to deal with so it isn't guaranteed that the E-MBT will really succeed. My hopes are still on the KF-51 or a vehicle using some of the KF-51's features.
@@tekha1977 EMBT stands for “European MBT”, not “Electric MBT”. The EMBT is a joint tank project between France and Germany, basically combining the Leopard 2 and the Leclerc.
@@Lxcx311 So the f22 isnt American since lockheed martin is just amercian company, nah I dont think so rheinmetall is german and the german goverment has full controll over it
Dalek's video: th-cam.com/video/7gSiRZNtI-A/w-d-xo.html
And since people are apparently confused by this; the title is very clearly in reference to the XM1 program specifically. This is not a "M1 Abrams > Leopard 2" video. If it was, the operative word of the title would be the present tense "beats", not the past tense "beat."
Thank you
my suggestion is renaning the tittle "why US choose M1 abrams over Leopard 2"
What about the concept tank KF-51 tank?
can you make a video like this on the brazilian tank Osório? it was apparently better than the abrams
The Abrams X retains a 120mm caliber main gun, do you think they will go for a 130mm like Rheinmetall or a 140mm like Nexter in the future, as the same question of growth potential is back on the table ?
I think many people get too held up on “The Best Tank” when each one is designed for different desires and usage. There’s a reason the US pours money into the Abrams and chose it as a platform. The US does care about having everything serve them best, so there’s going to be clear reasons for decisions.
But what is the doctrine
@@coolsalmon485 oil
How is using gas turbine with bad air filtration in the FUKING DESERT with sand the best decision
Gas turbine is best descision for Arctic cold environment for northern Russia.
@@coolsalmon485 strategic mobility
@@Relics275 combined arms is also big.
I find it crazy the M1 Abrams is 50 years old, that would be like using a panther tank in the 90s, shows how far tank development went during the cold war but its kinda faltered a little now.
Hard to upgrade a tank a lot when the most common threat it faces (50 yo RPG’s) haven't changed in half a century. If there’s a minor land war between let’s say Israel and Iran, one backed with new American tanks the other new Russian tanks, I think we would see both sides realize flaws in their designs and new stuff drawn up and built really fast.
Aha! You would think that. But the fact is, we have become too good at tank design. Remember the M1911? The pistol that was adopted in... 1911? Yeah to this day we still use the same short-recoil operation design in almost every pistol chambered in 9mm and larger. It's not that we started sucking at gun design, it's just we found the most efficient design available (META, if you will) for handgun design, and we've just tinkered on it for 110+ years and continuously improved it. Same for tanks, we've started to reach the point where we've gotten so good at it that it's getting hard to make giant improvements, just little ones that can be even done in upgrade kits. (THAT IS, unless you are Russia. They're kinda... special. Developmentally delayed, if you will.)
@@g.williams2047 Let's not forget that pretty much everything is different in SEP V3 from what it was in M1. Abrams got upgraded, T72/80/90 too... but not that much - especially now lacking high-tech parts. Russians have T14 though... but it's hard to believe stats given on paper.
Not quite the same tank. While overall form is the same, there is plenty different where it counts. Armour isn't the same as what it started off with advances in composites, add-on packages, better terminal effects understanding to not only improve overall protection but to face changing threats. You have advanced optics, gun stabilisation, remote weapon stations, hard/soft kill systems, threat detectors/counter measures, computer targeting, integrated battlefield information in every tank. Bigger gun, better ammo. Better engine. 50 years of institutional knowledge has improved effectiveness.
As for thee the likes of T14, given it only have enough for parades, it would have to be some kind of super tank with the best crew ever to match the numbers advantage that far older tanks would represent let alone an M1 or ATGM behind every hill. The thing is that if the T14 is actually that "Good" countries would be lining up to buy it. Due to the lack of orders *Insert reason here* the Russian government can't afford it as they can't scale the cost and they don't believe in it enough to buy enough themselves to get the unit cost down. The paper spec for the T14 might as well be fan fic given how absurd they are.
It hasn't faltered it's just become far harder to advance now because the tank is at the cutting edge of the technology it uses and thanks to the future proof design of modern tanks, most things even major components like armament and powertrain can be swapped out for the latest and greatest quite easily so they are always up to date
It's like the current smart phone market how it slows simply because the Industry is now at the bleeding edge of the tech they use and most major upgrades have already been done at least for now
Tanks are developed to meet specific needs and criteria. The M1 is the perfect example, much as the M4 Sherman was for its era. And when those choices are made, they are made knowing what the effects will be or if there is the ability to upgrade and improve in the future.
Yes but the m4 is shit
@@jrtu1177
Unless, of course, you're playing War Thunder, in which case the M4 is near invincible
@@jrtu1177 nope it isn't
The M4 was good enough to defeat the vast majority of threats it encountered. It was cost effective enough to be produced in large quantities without crippling the economy of the nation that built it. It was reliable and maintainable enough to serve on literally every continent on the planet except Antarctica, often a long long way away from support facilities or the factories that built it.
What more do you want from a tank?
@@jrtu1177You do not understand the magnitude of wrong you are in.
Doctrin would play a major role too.
Germany just needed a tank that can duell other tanks, there wasn't a need for resisting ATGM teams on Fulda gap.
US needed a well rounded tank for a lot of scenarios and then ATGMs are really much more common then other MBTs.
Every country produces the best tank that they can.
Thinking otherwise would mean some random armchair general is much smarter then the defense ministry of a whole country.
Which clearly is very unlikely.
Even something as a cheap upgrade as T-72B3 mod 2016 is the best solution for the given resources and necessary capabilities.
It just seems that the resources were clearly not enough to make a good product, but that isn't always the fault of the designers.
There is a simple answer why abrmas was chose "its american designed and built". If u look at NATO standardization (especially how USA dealt with a united rifle round that was already developed and nearly adopted by 4 european nations) most have come down to USA equipment or rounds as USA never likes to use any other natiosn equipment (only if its wastly superior to their own and wil force domestic variant with their economic might).
@@woldemyr5234 except leopard 2 is the most widely adopted tank in NATO.
@@woldemyr5234 If you watch the video Spookston addresses this point where the Leopard was going to be built under US license if the US picked it.
@@nathaneddy502 user wise.
The US alone still has more Abrams in storage than Leopards was ever build.
But maybe the it speaks for itself that the Abrams basically lost any major competition when it came to buyers to the Leo. 2 lol
@@ijn4438 U didnt get the point clearly (ofc USA would have local production). It didnt mater to USA/Pentagon/Commision that it would be built in USA, as it wasnt USA designed after the failure of MBT-70 project, they couldnt go and say the German design was more "moderately" succcesful in duties.
Side armor is actually a very important thing for tank survivability as if an artillery shell lands just near the tank, the crew can simply die because of the shrapnel
Russian tanks have like double the side armor of nato tanks. China has less than Russia but more than nato tanks.
Russian tanks have more side armor on paper, but Nato tanks have historically been ridiculously more durable in comparison. There's dozens of videos of Abrams tanks shrugging off side shots from RPGs
@@Phantom-bh5ru Sound highly non-credible for me
Considering abundance of footage of russian tanks getting shredded in Ukraine
@@JK-oq9cl always excuses with you lot.
Meanwhile T-72s given to Assad got slapped with those same RPGs
@@JK-oq9cl the ones thay regularly destroyed vehicles with less armor
The Leopard and Abrams are both very good tanks, idk why people can't agree that they where made for different types of combat and roles, along with expectations. It's like trying to compare the M4 Sherman to the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther. The M4 was made to be smaller in every aspect, (less armor smaller gun, etc.) to be shipped across the world if needed. The Panther didn't need to be shipped across oceans, only by trains when needed, and majority of the time they would drive a short distance to the battle field so they could be bigger, have more armor and a bigger gun. Same with the Leopard and Abrams. The USA wanted a tough tank with lots of armor, along with it being slower. The Germans wanted a tank for potential war in Europe. So the Leopard naturally had to be lighter to cross more bridges, and be more mobile. I love both in their own ways. P.S. , Spookston, would you mind making a video on the Kanpfpanzer-51?
There is also the aspect of what they are expecting as opposition, Germany would obviously prioritize tank battles as the Soviet/Russia went heavy on them. USA would obviously prioritize a "balanced" tank since its expect to fight all over the world against different doctrines. This kinda applies to the M4 and Panther of your example quite well too.
@@LtAlguien the M1 and Leo 2 were both made with fighting the Warsaw pact in mind. The US just saw the threat ATGMs would play a lot sooner then Germany did because believe it or not the US rarely went beyond the western hemisphere, Europe and east Asia during the cold war
@@shadewolf0075 ... Did u just say that USA saw the ATGM threath sooner... when Leopard 1 had no armors specifically bcs it saw ATGMs and other man portable anti tank weapons so saturated in the battelfield that it was designed as a moblie gun carrier that could at max suffer a 30mm autocannon from the front.
@@woldemyr5234 the US during the M1's development was concerned with ATGMs like the Kornet and anti-tank rockets. Granted it's not designed for a javelin or Nlaw but yes the Abrams was made to protect its crew from ATGMs in use during the 80s
You mixed up some things. Sherman was made for reliability, comfort and on some stages for better anti-tank probabilities. Panther was made for making crew blind and demoralised by cramped space, also frying their asses with it's stupid transmission
Meanwhile australia picked the Abrams because it was the one that was in stock at the time, we would’ve had to pre-order chally 2s or wait until Germany whipped up enough spare parts for our batch of Leo 2s. The US just so happened to have everything ready when we went shopping
I mean, it's pretty easy to have all that already available when you've got the US's military spending budget...
@@Abizinator hell, we got hulls in desert fields just so that the factory workers wouldn't be unemployed. Just get the wiring and post hull builders and that order will be done before a year is over.
And then we had them modified so with air conditioning so now they have a nice cool temperature of the ambient air outside. 'Oi Bruce, what's the temp outside? 41 mate. Fuck me dead, couldn't they install something better?'
@@Marth667 good old NBC, at least the tankies get that, ASLAV aren’t allowed to use their fuckin AC
You just happened to shop when the US was ready
People just don’t seem to care about reading up on these things and just make assumptions, thanks for a well made and informative video!
I heartily agree. I guess that makes me a research nerd, but I find these types of videos very enjoyable.
This whole thing (sort of) reminds of the NATO PDW cartridge trials with the FN 5.7mm and the H&K 4.6mm. The FN round performed better overall, the Germans threw a fit and the whole PDW standardization thing went tits up.
No reason trying to argue with HK, cause of you do they'll just absorb ALL of your favourite defense manufacturers
Except that wasn't the whole reason an official PDW cartridge was adopted.
There's a video on Forgotten Weapons, but to sum it up, the intention was to create a cartridge that can penetrate the CRISAT armor used by the VDV paratroopers under set parameters- Issue is, neither of them did this. For all the strengths of either cartridge both having more ergonomic firing platforms, it doesn't justify the extremely high cost of adopting a round that doesn't even do succeed in that particular parameter, it would not have been cost-effective.
That and, the US, the biggest member of NATO, wasn't at all interested, adopting a new cartridge that doesn't do more than what's already available, when only a few countries were interested, wasn't feasible. As a result, both are essentially boutique rounds.
in what world the 5.7 perform better? and 4.6 came way later into the game + the calibers where made to be able to penetrate armours that 9x19 and .45 couldnt
and AP SX for the MP7 outperforms 5.7 SS190 in armour penetration power.
@@AdlumairsoftIt's common knowledge that the 5.7x28mm was the better round. It's carrying far more kinetic energy on target than the much tinier 4.6x30mm round.
@@tylersmith3139 Yet 4.6 AP SX has more penetration then 5.7 SS190
About the weight limit - I wouldn't be surprised if some people involved in the project were thinking in metric and others were thinking short tons.
That actually kind of lines up. 58 metric tons converts to about 63.93 US tons, and the combat loaded Leopard 2 was 63 US tons loaded which would have been within the limits if the US wanted metric tons.
@@CliffordChang-v8c so in other words most of the issues regarding perceived shady actions on germanys part are likely just the US not using fucking metric
@@cynicalfox190 excellent.
Hilarious if true
@@cynicalfox190 Or the Germans not understanding they are selling to a country that doesn't use fucking metric and forgot. But based on what I heard it went deeper then then that.
People compare tanks by seeing which is better at killing tanks, not by if they do their job well.
Challenger series is a perfect example of a “bad” tank that is used in a way that negates its weakness and was picked because of its pretty significant advantages (like use of HESH, given its an Infantry support tank by design).
Something something German superiority compared to a Cromwell and Sherman.
I mean the gulf war literally saw large scale tank battles. Not to mention Israel's wars with the Arab coalition. It's not like tank on tank combat is anywhere near dead. It's just that western foes have literally been badly equipped guerrilla fighters and not formal armies.
The Challengers "advantages" are mostly Inflated by british fanboys tho. Hesh was already obsolete when the tank was designed and the rifled gun from the Challenger 1 was kept to cut costs.
Sounds like the MP7 vs P90 debacle all over again.
And people still whine about it just like back then
Loving the videos Spook! With regards to suggestions for new ones, I think it'd be cool if you brought a full lineup of a few tanks and other vehicles used by south Africa in War Thunder. Olifant, Rooikat, Ratel, etc.
I feel that many of these tanks get a bit overlooked in the game. Especially the Olifant.
Hey. If you ever talk about new prototypes and stuff, id be curious about your opinion on the E-MBT, a mix of the hull of the Leo and the turret of the Leclerc, although that turret is barely recognizable.
Basically just a pr project.
I always wondered what the point of that was. Sure, the Leo could use better turret armor, but is it sensible to make an entire new generation of MBT from existing MBTs? Surely it would be better to make a new tank if you are going that far.
@@pilferedserenity1570 exept that it’s unlikely the current MGCS project will give us anything for about amour decade or 2. The EMBT would at best be a stopgap and a way to test new techs for the MGCS
It was to show that both companies are able to integrate their systems into one plattform.
@@Falkenlp3 yes, a technology demonstrator, like the shiny M1 thing upgrade that came out
They need to come out with an upgraded Bob Semple. Nothing in the world would match it.
i think i got an extra lawnmower, give me an hour or two and ill have the bob semple 2.0
@@qualitycontentchannel4443 We can make composite armor, i got some leftover bathroom tiles
@@derikWG Awesome, i have some pop-its, im sure we can band-aid those on as ERA
@@qualitycontentchannel4443 I have a lot of unused Tire compounds there. Can it be used as a part of the NERA for Bob Semple 2.0?
@@moisesezequielgutierrez of course
Can we all just admit that the Merkava, Abrams, Leppard, and challenger are just sexy tanks in general
YES
Nahhh, if merkava was a girl, she would be obese, the leopard 2 with composite is my love
Spookston should teach a online class of his own I feel like it would be a really cool thing and if it costed money I would pay for it just to learn. Thank you for another informational video spookston I always love watching these and learning something new
definitely unbiased information coming from a reliable source, no foul play at all
@@honk5468 ?
@@EVA-UNIT-13 spookston is funded by george soros and the wef, look it up
@@honk5468 🤡
@@a-10brrrrrrrrrrr72 says the idiot with a dog water plane as their username.
“The Best Tank” debate usually fails when people forget the doctrines in which the tank was designed for…my go-to is the JGSDF’s tanks and their usage for an auto-loader and hydropneumatic suspension.
Doctrine is where people always forget the main purpose and design of the vehicle. Air, ground, or water. From there, it can be defined as good or bad. My ¢2.
Exactly. It's like a modern day version of the M4 Sherman debate.
People look at the paper stats and think that's all that matters.
They see a carefully compiled montage of tanks of "Nation X" getting blown up and conclude that the tank sucks because it got blown up. Ignoring the fact that tanks have never been invulnerable
Could you possibly do a video on the abramx or more specifically survival cell hulls and how they can be best implemented. To me and engineer it seems like a nightmare to both have a lot of armor to protect the crew but also be forward enough in the hull to have escape hatches along with a turret and engine assembly behind you.
Abrams X would probably just be a tech demonstrator for future US tanks and not for fielding purposes
I would like to do a “B-But America Bad, Other Country Good” joke but it’s like you said, tank fan boys don’t realize that Countries (mostly the ones that can build their own tanks) usually go for what they want, it’s why I doubt “They didn’t choose X because of 1 reason” claims the more I get older when it comes to military questions. 1 reason is the easiest to understand but is also the most bare bones and quickest way for someone to dismiss the entire argument.
The M1 went with the 105mm because the new DU rounds were already entering war stocks in Europe for the M60 tank. The M60 would be in service for many years while the M1 was being fielded so they had to serve side-by-side. As noted, the US 105mm was comparable to the British and German 120mm. The M1 program knew that would not last, but they were colonels and generals tasked with defending Western Europe NOW, not in five or ten years, so they went with the 105mm now with the plan to upgrade to the 120mm in the near future.
Hey dude you going to do a video on General Dynamics Abrams x technology demonstrator it looks really cool
seconded
I'll make a video on it after AUSA 2022 ends
@@Spookston nice
Good video on this often-misunderstood aspect of the M-1's choice as America's tank. In a lot of the testing, the US was simply too trusting of its NATO partner in the trials. As to the turret armor, a US mechanic dropped a heavy clevis against the Leopard turret, and it resonated like a bell. He told the attending General officer who checked this and confronted the German technical reps who finally came clean that the test vehicle was way underweight and had no internal armor plates in the turrets shell. As to the engine, the Germans had a long-standing agreement with MTU Aero Engines to produce all engines of local design. They are very good engines. But for anyone who's ever been around them they are both load and have a resonance that announces their presence long before they show up.
That sounds pretty one-sided, if im gonna be frank. Some of the requirements put to the Austere Variant were also quite extreme.
Both are good, yes, but can they beat a Puma? No? Case closed. 1.0 Puma supremacy
Three are good, yes, but can they beat a Strike Drone? No? Case closed. Air supremacy
The lynx dunks on the puma
Sorry, but the A-10 and F-35 invalidate your argument
@Wonder_Wondering i'd rather use the f 35 on something with a radar
There something funny to me about weight limit concerns, considering both tanks have evolved into 70 tons these days.
But that is after their modernisation packages, imagine if they started at 70 tonnes their drivetrains would be so underpowered after all the upgrades.
Can you make a video about main differences in tank design between NATO and Russia? It would be interesting to know about main reasons one side makes their tanks different from the other especially now that those designs clash with each other in Ukraine
money and respect for human life.
Also not really fair comparison as there's so many types in use there that's it's really hard to tell what aspects of them have won specific engagements- but it seems that ukrainaians are wining due to better oreintation what is where. As one despised by putin's gang russian ex offcicer said "they have an observation drone in each platoon, we have in each company". Also hard to recognise specific types as ukrainians seem to put Kontakt-1 on every single type of tank that did not have any ERA beforehand- so Czech modified T-72's are almost impossible to distinguish from Polish ones (which are infirour in many mechanical aspects but got thermals and BMS installed) unless you have intimate knowlage of how each type of sighting device looks like in each subvariant.
Both Ukraine and the RF are using soviet designs, tbh there is really no such thing as a "Russian designed tank".
Here are some:
Russian tank design enforces a lower weight limit on its designs. This is largely for Logistical and Infrastructure reasons. Abram and Leopard designs have faced issues in the past and present due to their weight. This restriction on weight led to several cascading effects for Russian designs.
An earlier adoption of autoloaders. (Saves Weight)
An earlier adoption of ERA. (Protection from Shaped Charge weapons, early ERA, without the weight of steel.)
When it comes to ammunition stowage, Russians put the ammunition in the safest part of the tank to minimize the chance that it will be hit. (The same place that the M4 Sherman eventually placed its ammunition and became the safest tank of WW2.) Westerners put the ammunition in an extremely dangerous part of the tank that is likely to be hit, but mitigate that with blast doors and blowout panels. Contrary to what some will say, both Americans and Russians put plenty of effort into crew survivability. They just did it in different ways. The Russian method relies on putting the ammunition where it is least likely to be hit in the first place. The Western method relies on the blowout panels and blast doors working as they are supposed to. Neither method is foolproof.
Western Tank design tends to focus on bleeeding edge technology with relatively limited production numbers.
Russian Tank design tends to focus on "Good Enough" technology that can be mass produced.
The West will build a prototype that will test the limits of technology and then put it into production.
The Russians will build a prototype that will test the limits of technology, then dial it back a little bit so they are still quite good, but can also afford to crank out 20,000+ of them.
There are obviously exceptions for both.
Russian designs are focused on tanks being a "Battlefield Bully", where fighting other tanks only happens occasionally. HE-FRAG capability is considered extremely important. Typical Soviet tank loadout was supposed to be about 40% HE-FRAG.
Modern Western designs, for lack of a better description, are basically Tank Destroyers. They are focused on the waves of Tank v Tank combat that was supposed to take place in Europe. Their 120mm HE-FRAG capability is effectively non-existent as far as fielded ammunition. Other than SABOT, most Western 120mm tanks only have canister or a slightly modified HEAT shell that gives somewhat improved fragmentation effect. Though 120mm HE-FRAG type shells do exist, they tend to be not wildly fielded.
Now, with the impartial facts out of the way, where do I see Western design moving? I honestly see it moving towards Russian tank design philosophy. 70 ton land-ships are becoming a liability. The 40-50 ton weight range looks to be the sweet spot. Actually hitting that weight target will require Western designers to make the same sort of choices that the Russians had to make. Personally, something like the M8 Buford Light Tank scaled up to be a MBT would be a good analogue of where one might see Western MBT design going. Though there are other paths as well.
@@Crosshair84 Now just replace "Russian" with "Soviet".
Russians rely on sovjet technology
And the sovjets used cheap light tanks that they could mass produce because they had a lot of manpower but not as strong of an economy
Their tank doctrine was based on what worked in ww2 which was quantity over quality
During the cold war the sovjets didn’t invest much in tank development because it was already behind america in economy and technology so it considered its rocket and nuclear program to be the most important linchpin of national security
I know this isn't really your typical video topic, but I never fully understood how such thin armor on these modern MBTs can have such great protection against kinetic shells. I mean sure you have angles, but the speed and density of these APFSDS shells are actually insane. Alternatively, you could talk about how spall is formed, because that also doesn't make much sense when you think about the fact that the hole a kinetic shell makes is rather small. Anyways keep up the great work! I love the content
if you look at interior video of both tanks' turrets, it's amazing how much more cramped the Leopard 2 is. And the M1's ammo storage is vastly better both for the ergonomics of getting to it quickly, and far better for survivability due to the isolated ammo compartment with blowout panels.
The Leo2 has ammo and blow out panels in the turret too. The main difference is that it has less shells in the turret and a front hull storage.
I think the justification was that the front part, in which the Leo2 stores the hull shells, is very well protected even at the sides, moreso than the Abrams (supposedly, theres no official data). And the Abrams does suffer from a heavier turret, thats likely part of why the US is constantly trying to make the gun lighter, while the Leo2 got a heavier and longer barrel instead.
Its all trade-offs in the end. That said, the Leo2 is more cramped than the Abrams? I havent heard that before.
@@termitreter6545 bigger turret interior wise the leopard is most definitely more cramped than the Abrams
@@spartanx9293 as a leopard 2a6 crewman id like to visit the abrams if its so less cramped. Leopard definately is anything but cramped
@@taistelusammakko5088let's just say, it fit the Chieftain.
Not the tank, the youtuber, who's well over 6 ft tall, and he was extremely comfortable in it.
you're clueless because you've never been in any of them@@spartanx9293
I definitely appreciate these history oriented videos with mythbusting! I hope to see more Cold War Era vids, like, was the M60 (or Patton series at large) any good in the end? (Ask Israel)
Because, Murica.
Thanks, now I don't need to watch the video
I counter you with the M14.
Similar happened with the FN FAL. The US "agreed" to adopt it, but really never did, and having given the US license to the FN FAL to produce it AND export it with basically no financial benefit to FN no matter how many the US made or sold, FN had 0 reason to make the US adopt the FN FAL, so it didn't try very hard when the rifle was trialed. It would've actually been a financial problem for FN, making them weaker when licensing FAL production rights overseas.
So when a group of dudes got randomly hyped up about making "the greatest winter rifle ever" while prototyping the M14, and they put a bunch of effort into making those specific rifles (not the entire design) work really well in the cold, and the testing showed those specific rifles superior, the American design got a good chance at winning, and eventually did.
People have been crying that the US should've adopted the FAL ever since. But without a rifle as bad as the M14 in service, we never would've gotten the M16 so.... it'd've been worse overall
West Germany had one mission, fight WW III on its doorstep. Giving ground until the rest of NATO could deploy in support of the ground war. The USA also had to fight not only in Europe but South Korea. And be deployable around the world. (that's where the weight came into play, see C-5 aircraft)
Think of a sports team that only plays home games. You know the weather and the lay of the land. Leopard 2 is your tank. Abrams only plays away games. Not great in any only place, but can get work done.
As for ammo, the USA had a lot of 105mm ammo stockpiled. (from m60) The 120mm was delayed until on the shelf 105mm was used up or sold off.
Can you do a video on the new AbramsX by GD? Its a future Abrams design featuring a crewless turret. I thought that the new Abrams was gonna have a 4 man crew due to the 4 concept designs proposed a little over a year ago, but GD built a "mock up(?)" of this new version, some calling it the potential SEPv4
That would be very interesting, hoping to see a subject like that in a future video!
SepV4 already exists. AbramsX, much like Rhinemetall's new Panther concept - is a paper tank. Both are a collection of ideas and concepts for a future tank program. Neither has anything concrete, as they want those government research dollars/euros first.
It's like a concept car just an engineering exercise to show off what they can do
The GDLS AbramsX is a technology demonstrator, and will not be selected as a “replacement” for the M1A2 SEPv3 and v4, even in the future.
interesting. I thought it was a tech demonstrator cuz it didn't match the specs the US army proposed with the 4 other concepts
Just know that Germany vetoed the adoption of the P90 despite it being better in every way against the MP7…
Yeah, the MP7 is easier to hide, but it was in no way a tanker crew or back/hind troops main issue weapon.
It's round was tiny even compared to the FN 5.7x28mm round and would have shown worse kinetic energy on target.
It's a great cqb gun, as is the P90, but not as good of a PDW as the P90 is. It's better for special forces troops who need concealable submachine guns.
The Puma IFV has a bit of a cult following (myself included) and many think this should be at least an interim replacement for the Bradley, yet the US seems to disqualify it, despite great performance in tests.
Might be a popular topic.
The US isn't going to adopt it the Bradley while long in the tooth can still do its job and we'd most likely just design a homegrown infantry fighting vehicle
At this point, the idea that the US will adopt a German conceptualized or designed vehicle and vice versa(not counting aircrafts) remains a distant dream
@@adityabora9131 if the u.s. adopt a German ifv it is not going to be the puma it's going to be the lynx and even then it's competing against the cv90 Griffen and redback
I've come back to further s*** on the puma that thing is an overpriced mechanically overcomplicated garbage pile and objectively inferior to the lynx the u.s. is going to adopt a German vehicle it should be the lynx
"I like apples." "Well, I like oranges."
Wait the thing I don't get about the AV is how was it heavier than a 2A4 which are around 55 tons and not 63? Improvements in the composite armor that made the 2A4 lighter? Or did the AV have additional armor somewhere or something?
Also as a Leopard 2 tanker myself, I am properly jealous of the M1 having all of it's ammo behind some kind of blow out panel, while in the Leopard 2 there's a lot of ammo in the hull, like holy shit who thought of doing this so half assed? At the same time I'm glad that I don't hear a constant "WEEEEEEEEEEE" but shit's loud either way so it's just a case of picking your source of tinnitus lmao
Because he's talking about short tons - 63 short tons is about ~57.2 metric tons and the 2AV was a bit overweight, they reduced that by reducing thickness of plates over the engine bay etc.
@@eyyze Aaaah thank you
Auf was für einen Leo bist du aufgeteilt? A6 oder A7V?
@@Phoenix.r6 Schweiz, Panzer 87 Leopard 2 WE, domestisches upgrade vom 2A4 der ihn im Innern auf's Level eines 2A5 bringt. Kein neuer Turm, Panzerung etc. tho :(
@@Meuduso1 oh :( Macht der aber Spaß? Und würdest du dich über einen A6 oder A7V freuen?
I wonder what the specks would have been if the 2AV had gone for a 105mm too
it probably would have been closer to weight but not by much. also would have had to redo the fcs and stab
@@jacobdewey2053 I meant more as in having started to work on the 2AV with the 105mm in mind from the very start, so the FCS and Stabilization would've been designed for the gun at the start
In early 1976, in what was a first for Army vehicle testing, the 2 XM1's - Chrysler and GM - were evaluated at APG, by a board of Armor Officers and NCO's assembled from across CONUS, under the command and control of the Operational Test and evaluation Agency.
Both tanks were subjected to some very stringent testing using the M60A1 as the baseline vehicle. The Chrysler was judged the superior of the 2 prototypes. This testing lasted for several months. At the end of the testing, the board was released to it's units. In the Fall of 1976, as many of the same Officers and NCO's were reassembled at APG, at the behest of the German Government, to perform the same testing for the Leopard 2. Same people, same tests.
From the perspective of the tankers, the XM1 significantly out performed the Leopard 2.
The Project Manager and his engineers did the data assessment but the fact was the Leopard was not on a par with the Chrysler XM1.
It was that simple.
The Abrams didn't rip off of the Leopard II, the Leopard II didn't rip off of the Abrams.
They both EVOLVED from the MBT-70. This is basic knowledge
Bro the command and conquer generals soundtrack taking be back! Great video
i was getting ready to hear more "why tank Y is the best in the world" followed by some Hard fact numbers
but i should have known better,
this was great.
Great Video! I think a lot of people forget that during the Cold War Germany and the U.S had very different needs. Whereas Germany was very close to Russia basically neighbors the U.S was over 5,000 miles away with oceans between us and Russia, so what we need in a tank was different to what Germany needed and vis-a-versa, not to mention the U.S was pretty much expected to be the main fighting force anywhere outside of Europe if fighting broke out. I'm just glad the Cold War never went Hot and that we got to amazing tank development programs out of it! Can you maybe do a video on French or British MBT development through the Cold War Era?
A LOT of people still hold on to the narrative of the US being biased towards it's own vehicle mainly because a decade earlier, the US took one of the worst decisions in regards to smalls arms development and adoption when they INTERFERED with the FAL project and turned around and adopted the M14 and soon after the M16.
which makes it perfectly understandable to be suspicious of US claims
@@delfinenteddyson9865 No, not really, especially if you try to apply it to equipment adopted decades before or after.
division yeah many people who are big fans of certain weapons or vehicles tend to go nuts whenever the us doesn't pick them to replace whatever. Like for example HK fans hating the fact the US army chose to upgrade the magazines of the M4 because that was the main issue causing the gun to jam more often rather than adopt the HK 416 during the rifle competition that was held some time before the NGSW program
I couldn’t find Dalek’s account for several years. I’m liking this video just for that.
Title is kinda misleading, it even fished me into clicking the video
Prepare for Leopard Fanboys
How exactly is it misleading? The M1 beat the Leopard 2 during US procurement, which is explained very early on into the video.
@@Spookston It looks as if it beat the Leopard 2 in performance not just in USA but overall
When you look at it on a broad scale, there isn’t currently, “The best tank.” You have to look at each vehicle’s purpose. The U.S. has chosen the Abrams so defiantly because it’s served them the best. Same goes for the German military. If you were to enter a leopard in U.S. service, people may not think the leopard is all too great, and vice versa.
That's cool and all but
I find that putting two angry cartoon eye decals will make this tank overwhelmingly superior and give it a huge tactical advantage both in physical combat and psychological
That turret ring shot trap on the Abrams drives me nuts though.
Thanks for the shoutout!
Love your videos please make more.
Tank design can be summed up in one saying, “each to there own”. Every country designs there armoured vehicles around there own needs and requirements. Sure some designs are better than others in other countries and scenario’s, but for the country that builds them, they’re great, Merk from Israel is a great example of that.
I dont get why t55 gets 335mm pen and abrams gets the same what Gaijin is smoking
wasn't expecting Dalek14mc to be mentioned, I'm glad he's still around
All depends on the skill of the crew
Holy shit, the tank that got designed by their country for their specs was chosen over the tank designed for the other country and its specs
Maybe you want to dive into the decision on why the Germans chose the Leo 2. Or rather why it is the best for Germany.
I'd also point out that in the late 1970s, the US and NATO had massive stocks of 105mm tank ammo, making a wholesale caliber change logistically and fiscally unwise. The US Army was also sour on combustible case ammunition at the time, viewing it as not ready for prime time after the m81/M162 gun-launcher fiasco. The M1's gun trunnions and mount were always designed with upgunning in mind. The Army were already trialling the L44 in 82-83 in the M1E1. M1A1 entered service by 1986, so we're only talking 6 years with the "inferior" gun.
The M68 was retained by the US Army because it was about to adopt the DU "slug" APDSFS M774 which was equal to the 120mm tungsten-steel DM23. The M900 would equal the performance of the DM31, especially with the lengthened M68. The US Army adopted the 120mm Rheinmetall gun after reducing the number of parts by 25% (thus cheaper) as the M256. They did this to exceed the performance of the tungsten-steel DM33 with the DU solid APDSFS M829A1.
you should do a podcast - this is the only channel I can really listen to without watching and I would probably slap that on while I did other stuff
People tend to forget that the Chrysler M1 won because both the Leo2 and GM M1 didn't provide enough crew protection with ammo in a non-isolated hull storage.
You don't win wars by having small amounts of amazing bespoke equipment. You win wars by having greater amounts of good equipment and employing said equipment better than the other guy.
a good topic would be the C1 Ariete AMV upgrade
Watch gaijin nerf the add on again just because someone mentioned the ariete's
I agree with you Peter owo
@@donedar3046 zitto tu furry
Got here early! Good video!
What do you think about the Abrams X? Or the t14 Armata?
one is tech-demo for m1a3 while the other still is a paper tank for 8 years
Ones a tech demonstrator that won't reach production.
The other is a tech demonstrator that will reach small scale production
One is for testing weapons and is a concept design and armata is on paper.
@@AdirFoxxo that means they both exist
Is Leo 2a7 a paper tank? Because there are more T-14s than 2a7s
Love this channel
Both the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 were a result to the MBT-70 program which Congress cancelled in 1969 because it became too expensive and Congress then approved the XM1.There were two versions___one with a a traditional diesel engine___and the other with a gas turbine engine____the same engine as the Soviet T-80;
Keeping experienced crews alive was very important to America at the time, they were preparing for a war in Eastern Europe against Russia. America needed to give its military every chance at survival because replacing people is expensive when you’re fighting a war half a world away.
Keep in mind that between these trials and the actual fielding of these tanks, the slick M1 would surpass the Leo 2 in KE protection as well. The Swedish trials documents indicate that 80% of the Leopard 2A4's frontal armor (Pakete B) was 350mm. A declassified CIA report puts the M1 at 400mm KE. This doesn't include the M1's UFP which is actually more than 500mm of KE effectiveness.
The first version of the M1 provided 400 mm RHA vs KE as you wrote and 750 mm RHA vs CE, and the Leopard 2 with B technology armor (from 1-5 batch) provided 350 mm RHA vs KE and 700 mm RHA vs CE (RARDE documentation). Leopard 2 with C armor tech ( 6-8 batch ) provided about 420 mm RHA vs KE and 750-800 mm RHA vs CE. We know from the British Army test results that the Leopard 2A4 did not meet their minimum armor requirements, the Abrams did.
@@Viktor-fl5mv Im speaking on the orginal M1 vs early Leo 2's by the time C tech was out M1A1HA was in production.
@@boxtankgamer6014 Basically the original M1 armor was superior to Leopard 2 with B tech and M1A1HA ( and most likely normal M1A1 1985 too ) with 1 generation DU armor was superior to Leopard 2 with C tech.
@@Viktor-fl5mv correct
It’s all about geopolitical conditions and military doctrine folks!
6:25 Bob semple should have been adopted
I literally just refreshed my main page
People think of tanks as stat cards or in direct comparison on equal footing. It doesnt work that way. The Merkava would be a god awful tank for the Japanese, but its the perfect tank for Israel. The Leo2 and M1 dont have as extreme design and doctrinal differences, but they still need to be taken into account
Excellent work.
Can you make a video about t to the M1 TTB and Challenger Falcon? People seem to think that the T-14 is the first MBT with a crew less turret
Because people are ignorant and illogical
Might just be me but both of those tanks are ugly as sin
In the 79's and 80's, the 105 L7gun can fire HESH, HEAT, explosive, smoke and canister (anti-infantry) rounds. The 120 only have explosive rounds on in the 90's. And it's the type of rounds the 105 can fire that the British took so long to get the 120.
I'm almost positive gun movement means it having a degree less of gun expression because otherwise it's superior in "gun handling" to the XM-1 just as the production Leopard 2s are.
On the topic of armour and survivability, Spookston really glossed over it but to give a tl;dr
- Leopard 2AV in fact did have composite for the turret sides... but! It did not have that composite extend over to the turret rack, which the US viewed as a minus.
- Survivability... both tanks had hull racks at the time of testing so in that case they are equal, but as mentioned earlier, 2AV had less armour coverage (no composite side-skirts played a huge role).
Judging them as MBTs purely, yes, Leopard 2AV was pretty much a superior vehicle at the time (again, XM-1 protoypes still had ammunition in the hull and much smaller turrets than production versions), but the cost and the fact that Germany was basically biding their time with it (plus some of the comittee guys having taken part in XM-1 program) ruled over it in favour of the XM-1.
To fans of the either vehicle, no I'm not saying XM-1 was a worse choice for the US Army, it was better, but the misonception that XM-1 crushed the 2AV in trials and was much better also isn't true.
Doesn't the Leopard 2 also have ammunition in the hull?
Your point about survivability is incorrect. Only the GM XM1 had a full-on hull ammo rack, the Chrysler XM1 only had the turret ready rack with a small number of rounds. Round compartmentalization was deemed superior on both XM1 pilots because they had a much larger percentage of their rounds protected by blowout panels. As for gun handling, I don't know how you can so sure of that since the 2AV used different components for that when compared to the production Leopard 2, and the fact that the terminology is so vague.
ok
@@Spookston Incorrect in fact. The Chrysler prototype did in fact have a hull rack, case in point however, it wasn't as big as the other 2 vehicles and was much further in the tank (hidden by more components).
Why can I be sure about the gun-handling? Because the 2AV and production version used the same hydraulic system for stabilization, turret rotation et cetera, at no point in any of the documents I own about the Leopard 2AV and Leopard 2A0 did they mention a switch of those - but the fact is that a lot of individuals tend to characterize gun handling with its depression and elevation limits - the usage of gun movement instead of gun handling like more modern sources tend to use (where they actually mention the speed at which the turret and cannon are moved) seems to implicate that it's about depression limit.
@@tomppeli. It does, the point is that a lot of people tend to forget XM-1's had them too (in fact modern ones do have them but they're often used as storage for other things rather than ammunition and are small; 6 rounds in total for the 120mm).
I’ve never heard anyone else say this, but the m1 was designed for the 120, and the 105 was picked for the listed reasons, especially that the 120 had not yet met performance requirements
Polands having alot of trouble with the Leopard series aswell.
Not sure why, but German defence companies have alot of toruble dealing with getting products out to consumer in a timely manner.
I think it gotten to the point where Poland just needed some sort of tank, and went with the Abrams just because.
Its probably got something to do with German bureaucracy bottlenecking the entire industry.
Source?
@@s.l.9309he made it up
dalek14mc
Now thats a name that I havent heard in a long time
Hang on isnt the Abrams X now going to use a hybrid engine as the pos gas turbine just guzzled fuel?
the AbramsX is a tech demo, not a real tank that is going to be produced. The AGT1500 (The Abram's current engine) consumes less fuel actually moving than most traditional diesel engines of tanks in a similar class. Only while idling does it consume more fuel. and in the modern M1 Variants the turbine already has a supplementary electric power system to run the systems while the tank is not moving to address the fuel usage issue.
True, but the turbine had multiple benefits that engines at the time didn't have.
Its a concept vehicle made by GDLS, we wont actually know if it's gonna be accepted.
That is a concept for testing, not the final design especially with a autoloader in it😬😬.
I do believe Spookston has made a video on the gas turbine in the Abrams.
The gist of it was that a gas turbine is basically superior to a traditional turbo diesel setup, the only drawback being idle fuel consumption.
This is why I always say, there is no such thing as the best tank. Every tank is the best tank for the environment and countries they were built for.
Leo is better because it's named after a cat, fact.
Bro, I have been searching for Dalek's channel for over a year now without success and here you just mentioned him lol
Abrwams has been blown up so many times: Random person
Me: Most US Abrams have not
And most of the destroyed pictures are from middle eastern countries getting the shitter versions.. using them improperly or fleeing at first contact
ISIS got their hands on an Abrams once because the fucking Idiots fighting them
Bailed after 1 RPG hit and didn’t even get close to penetrating
I think we shouldn't have adopted the XM-1, and just made every armored vehicle a Patton series vehicle.
Pierre Sprey? Is that you?
Here me out
*combine them*
Leprabamord -1.5
He's too dangerous to be left alive!
That's easy, the leopard is a big cat. The Abrams is a man, who can pick up a gun
The Leo would have been expected to bear the brunt of heavy AFV/MBT on AFV/MBT combat reacting to breakthroughs through a defensive line held mostly by ATGM bearing light infantry, on Day 1 of WW3. Some Abrams would have experienced that, but most would have deployed days or weeks layer in a Reforger type scenario were it was unclear if there would be a war of maneuver across overrun NATO countries, aggressive counterattacks into the Soviet hinterlands, or penetrating a new line beyond the inital line of defense after most the Soviets had been dismounted. So the designs each country picked (less all-round protection, more firepower vs higher mobility and more comprehensive protection) make a lot of sense.
I like the ending, its correct. People often say that the Leopard 2 and the Abrams are "better" than the Challenger 2, saying that its low power-weight ratio and less capable gun make it borderline useless compared to its American and German counterparts. What they don't realise is that those failings are not very significant, its not like comparing a Tiger and an M18 for instance. The Challenger 2 fills a defensive role, sitting in prepared positions, hull down. The Abrams and Leopard 2 sacrifice survivability for greater speed, allowing them to act more aggressively. The tanks are not better in general, but better in specific roles.
Yea and a Challenger 2 the poor out of date MBT with a useless gun took out an Abrams in Iraq in a blue on blue incident
@@davidkennedy7743 same thing was done by a bunch of M1's but the point stands, there is no excuse fpr it being shit, mobility is key, and you have to move with the trend, as well as the stupid gun just to use Hesh.
But now with the challanger 3 thats going in the right direction, better engine and new gun.
But the chassis is just shit
That's because people like to laugh at the Challenger I admittedly like to do that and survivability the Abrams was designed for survivability it's the only NATO tank to feature blowout panels
Great video, very informative and true. Thank you for this video I cherish this video now thank you
I personally don't understand why people think the US should have chosen a tank from another country as their main battle tank the US is a big nation that is more than capable of creating their own military equipment it would be nonsensical for them to rely on another nation for a tank
Video idea: talk about the Brazilian MBT Osório, the tank that supposedly beat the M1 Abrams
I've been posting comments about this in his videos and yup, everything I got were some likes and people talking about it but I don't think Spook saw it. I really don't know what's going on but let's just wait and see
Osório, what a legend. I have a teacher that suposelly worked on the Osório at my university. It suposelly beat the Abrams on tests but wasn't bought by the Brazilian goverment and neither by the Arabs.
It didn't beat s*** cone of arc was full of it
I think with all of the upgrades the M1 got (esp 105->120) it is dubious that the M1 would actually cost less than a mature leopard 2 design over the lifecycle of the tank. That being said, it is almost certain the M1 is better suited for the type of combat it actually saw even if a Leo 2 would be better in the Fulda gap.
except that the leo2 design wasn't a mature design back in the 1970's when the program was evaluated so this comment is pointless. The 2A5 didn't enter service until 1995 by which point the M1A2 had already been in service for 3 years (with production for it beginning in 1986). also the leo 2 has costed more over it's entire service life so again I really doubt this to be true. leopard fans really reaching in this comment section
@@jacobdewey2053 M1A2 never began production in 1986, that's an internet hoax. The budget for production wasn't even there till 1991 and the congress only ordered evaluation of the design in 1990.
It is also a flat out lie that Leopard 2 costed more over its entire service life; literally the first thing many users cite is the cost-effectiveness of the tank and lower fuel usage.
It's telling that you're going for "leopard fans" type of argument there, makes you look like an "abrams fan" who is geniuenly angry at people liking another vehicle.
@@eyyze It seems you are correct it didn't begin in 1986 so I will concede that although it really wasn't relevant to the point I was making, it was just an addition. The budget for production wasn't there till FY1991 but it was approved for production in 1990 according to the information that I can find online and the point remains that it did enter service in 1992. I have found other information that states the Leo 2A5 didn't enter service until 1998 rather than 1995 which would be a full 6 years (though I can't really evaluate the source for either claim so I'll leave it at 1995).
I will concede that the Abrams likely doesn't have a lower life cycle cost than the leo 2 but it is hard to find exact numbers given that most of the new tanks are upgrades of existing frames so it's hard to know exactly how much each has cost, especially when there have been around 3 times as many abrams built as leopard 2's. Either way, I'll just assume you're correct. I will point out however that fuel usage is less of an issue since the addition of the APU into the abrams.
I'll concede the "leopard fans" comment was out of line. I just have a hatred for wehraboos and they tend to also be fanboys of anything german, even if primarily nazi german stuff. I don't dislike anybody for liking the Leopard 2, it's a great tank. I just hate tiger fanboys who circlejerk "german technological superiority"
@@jacobdewey2053 The *first* Leopard 2A5 was delivered in 1995 according to every website that I can find and is reasonably beliveable, you are probably thinking of ammunition (DM53 APFSDS) or when the prototypes of the Leopard 2A6 started appearing (both in 1998).
The reason why there's been 3 times as many M1s produced is simple - US has a much stronger economy and a much bigger army which means they need more vehicles unless they like being underequipped.
The APU is more iffy; on SEPv1 it would last only for 20 minutes to my knowledge and on SEPv2 it was replaced by batteries that would last 30 minutes on a good day. The problem is that tanks spend a lot more times at idle than that, this isn't as much of a problem for diesel vehicles since their idle fuel consumption is significantly lower.
And before, no, I'm not shaming the M1s driving unit and while the APU helps, it isn't a problem solver, that is why the recently revealed AbramsX had ditched the gas turbine for a diesel-electric hybrid engine, at the time of M1 being designed, the turbine made sense since it gave a boost on lower speeds and had reasonable fuel consumption *when moving*, but nowdays a lot of tanks are used as stationary support platforms, there the fuel usage of M1s turbine is unbearable.
"Leo 2 would be better in the Fulda gap"
Protection: Between the trials talked about in the video and the actual fielding of these tanks, the slick M1 would surpass the Leo 2 in KE protection as well. The Swedish trials documents indicate that 80% of the Leopard 2A4's frontal armor (Pakete B) was 350mm. A declassified CIA report puts the M1 at 400mm KE. This doesn't include the M1's UFP which is actually more than 500mm of KE effectiveness. M1 stores nearly all its ammo in the turret bustle protected by blowout panels (the 6 hull rounds are seldom filled and also have a blowout panel), the L2 stores most its ammo in an unprotected hull compartment. NBC was less sophisticated on early M1s but crews were trained to fight MOPP'd up.
Firepower: The Leopard 2 had a marginally better gun for anti tank work but the Soviet tests with DM23 had shown that the 105mm was perfectly adequate against T-64/72/80 armor at normal combat ranges. Once M833 comes around and then the M1A1 (M829) the Germans will basically be a generation behind in sabot performance until the L/55. FCS is roughly similar; M1 had a thermal sight from the jump which is a decisive edge but Leo got one not long after. M1 had a crosswind sensor but of dubious use at likely WW3 ranges.
Mobility: Swedish trials concluded that the Leo 2IMP and the M1A2 were roughly equal in mobility. The original M1 and Leo 2A0/1 weighed a lot less but the M1 was still lighter, had a marginally more powerful engine, and better torque in the low gears. I'll concede that the ATG-1500 was very thirsty when idle but that's the cost of having a highly reliable, true multi fuel engine.
Anyways by basically no standard was the Leo 2 "better" for the Fulda gap. The M1 was simply the best tank on the planet in 1979/80 and still managed to be cheaper.
I'm just waiting for Germany to make a Maus V2 with their new military budget
it wont go to anything useful, mostly just pencil pushers
M1 is best Tank, for USA
Challanger is best Tank, for UK
Leopard is best Tank, for Germany
Merkava is best Tank, for Israel
Leclerc is best Tank, for France
and the Hylux is Best Tank, for anyone on a Budget
And the T series tanks?
@@mill2712 best tank for the Romanian Scrapyards
@@mill2712
The T series is The Tank of Russia.
Hey, Spook, I had a bit of an idea for a video.
How do you feel about a video that would be comparing the Abrams and the T-72s/T-80s, based on the battle effectiveness, or lack thereof, we've seen in them today? As, imo, MBTs nowadays cannot really be compared effectively as they almost never see combat, but the Abrams and T-80s have seen combat against similar foes and forces(Guerilla warfare and insurgency type combat styles). I think it'd be a neat video, and someone as research intuitive and entertaining as yourself would make it pretty good imo
The Abrams is actually a good show piece how to not design a tank. It isn't as appealing to the export market as for example the Leopard, the soviet/russian T-Series or even in recent years with the K2 catching up in terms of interest. The engine choice was ridiculous considering the fuel consumption during idling. The lack of an autoloader is a significant drawback as well, although shared with the Leopard. And after seeing how the Abrams faired in several middle eastern conflicts, it seems rather vulnerable to late war shaped charges and newer munitions as well. Designs like the K2, Leclerc or Type 10 are a good look into the future of western tank design.
Failed, in the same way pretty much every other export tank 'fails' in those Middle Eastern conflicts? There are just as many videos of Leopards going up in smoke as Abrams, and even moreso for the Russian export tanks. When your vehicle looses it's more effective armor layout and is given lesser trained and experienced crews, as well as what is essentially full autonomy within the country it was exported to, it's not going to fair nearly as well. This is true for pretty much any export vehicle, not only the Abrams. These tanks when under their developing country's use are often proven to be effective and efficient. Especially for the Abrams, even if now it's age is really starting to show.
The biggest reason the Abrams isn't a very popular export vehicle is almost certainly because it's just pretty expensive, to buy and maintain. Is this an issue? Yes. Is it an issue the United States can deal with, because it has the funds to keep the vehicle operational? Yes. Has the tank proven itself to be an effective main battle tank for the United States? Absolutely.
A new version of the Abrams is in development through General Dynamics - which is much in line with the other western tanks you listed. An incredible reduction in fuel usage (around half, if I recall correctly), an autonomous turret, a roof mounted turret gun, reduced weight, autoloader, and a significantly smaller stature than the usual Abrams. Of course, it's not been fielded yet, it's only a demo - probably gonna be few years, if not longer, before we see any final verdict on whether or not it's tech will get adopted - but it's certainly revealing that the issues with the Abrams, a lot of people are aware of, and are willing to fix. Those issues however do not hold the tank back to such a significant degree that it's a 'show piece how to not design a tank'.
The Abrams is a tank specifically for what the US wanted and needed at the time, this didn’t have much consideration for export, this they kept their own homegrown tank. I don’t see any particular faults with the Abrams that actually hinder what the US military wants
,,The engine choice was ridiculous considering the fuel consumption during idling" - The US Army preferred the gas turbine over diesel. Today, Abrams has an APU, so fuel consumption is significantly lower at idle.
,, It isn't as appealing to the export market as for example the Leopard, the soviet/russian T-Series or even in recent years with the K2 catching up in terms of interest." - This is not an export tank, it was designed during the Cold War for the US Army against Soviet armored vehicles. Also Leclerc aka "good look into the future of western tank design." Has a much worse export record than Abrams, and on tests in Greece, Abrams surpassed Leclerc, and the British and Swedes assessed Abrams better than the French design.
,,The lack of an autoloader is a significant drawback as well, although shared with the Leopard." - not a drawback, but a different design solution. 4 crewman is an additional pair of eyes and hands, he will help with maintenance work.
,,And after seeing how the Abrams faired in several middle eastern conflicts, it seems rather vulnerable to late war shaped charges and newer munitions as well." - Theoretically each tank is vulnerable to modern ATGM's, the thickest armor only protects the frontal 60 degrees arc. That's why APS was invented... and the USA integrates the Trophy with Abrams. Abrams did very well in Both wars in Iraq while being used by US forces. Different story is Yemen and arabs...
General dynamics released a new video about their new m1 abrams. It’s pretty wild. Think t14 armata but as an m1 abrams. I would love to see a video about it.
Holy shit man, it looks sick. I didn't know about that, thanks for sharing!
Germany (*Rheinmetall)has a new tank prototype the Panther KF51 and it looks really cool.
that's not germany, that's rheinmetall which is just a german company.
the real german new tank is the E-MBT :)
@@Lxcx311 Arh, so electric then? How long does it take to charge from 20% to 80%?
@@Lxcx311 If that tank doesn't go the way of the MBT-70.
However, Germany is cooperating with France on this vehicle...and France is an absolute pain in the ass to deal with so it isn't guaranteed that the E-MBT will really succeed. My hopes are still on the KF-51 or a vehicle using some of the KF-51's features.
@@tekha1977 EMBT stands for “European MBT”, not “Electric MBT”. The EMBT is a joint tank project between France and Germany, basically combining the Leopard 2 and the Leclerc.
@@Lxcx311 So the f22 isnt American since lockheed martin is just amercian company, nah I dont think so rheinmetall is german and the german goverment has full controll over it