Why does everyone hate on the M1A2 Abrams? I have a cousin that is a tank commander on an Abrams and he has been hit with RPGs, anti tank mines, and countless IEDs and his tank is still operational
I think the biggest lesson about tank warfare is that it matters less about what you are fighting and more about who you are fighting, the Germans proved this during the Blitzkreig across France in 1940. French tanks were some of the heaviest armoured in the world at the time but the Germans used there tanks in massed formations in panzerdivisions rather than small units to support the infantry like the french did.Honestly, as far as statistics go, M-60 and T-72 are roughly equal in performance.
Do you ever play the Steel Beasts Pro series? its a great tank simulator. I have subscribed! Keep up the good work! If youre interested in Steel beasts then you can take a look at my channel :-)
you had 0 losses,well done but it would have been better if you had attached a small and fast recon vehicle controlled by yourself to your squadron to scout ahead very quickly.it may not be possible but i had encountered the same inconvenience armoured fist 3.
Abrams has not been knocked out by RPGs, ATGMs or AP rounds either, (considering it takes multiple blocks of C4, Hellfires and Sabot rounds just to scuttle ones that were disabled) but due to the fact that its been in combat in greater numbers it has encountered the specialized shaped charge IEDs sent from Iran. The fact of the matter is that in combat with similar crews Abrams, Leo 2 and Challenger 2 would perform almost identically.
What the Allies needed was a decent tank that could travel long distances, deal with nearly any threat, and be produced in vast quantities. And thats what they got with the Sherman, In 42 it was probably the best tank in the world and the Allies kept upgrading so that, while it wasnt the monster that the Tiger (which was a heavy tank not a medium) was it could do the job. And the reality of that war was that the medium tank was the king of the battlefield not heavies.
and yes early autoloader were unreliable on pre production models of T-64 but problem was completly sorted after T-64A production models. You have to understand one thing, soviets would not mass produce anything that did not do its job, if autloader was so misrable, trust me they would have gotten rid of it VERY quickly. Only problem with autloader is that it cant cook, or help around the tank, or be extra driver or gunner if situation demands. But advantages far outweigh disadvantages
Another problem is that the newer ATGMs can't fit in the carousal, and has to sit with the crew, so when they were deployed in Chechnya (Which they forgot to place ERA on the tanks as well) they were being hit by RPG-7s from the sides, and it caused the tanks to be torn to pieces when they wouldn't have if the aforementioned was solved.
Near the end of the war the American army had a fairly decent number of the new Pershing tanks as an answer to heavier German tanks. But the Sherman was the workhorse tank of that war for the western Allies.
Not saying the Abrams is the best, but it has been deployed in FAR greater numbers than the Challenger 2. If you want to argue, choose something better than combat losses.
M-60 versions all had 105s; it was the M-48A5 that had the upgraded 105 replacing the 90. I would rather have a well crewed M-60A1 with modern AP ammo (depleted uranium) than a T-72. (with the blazer armor to btw). T-72 is like other Soviet tanks - it blows up and burns when hit too easily. M-60 not quite as bad, but still vulnerable without adon armor. Your right though, it boils down to tactics and training. The best crew is the on that's gonna win, ie. 67,73, and especially 91 and 2002.
the m60a2 was a very good tank in my pltoon, 4th inf. div.10 armored calvery Vietnamn Centrail highlands, it always got us out of trouble useing canister rounds or H.E.
Not to mention all the material shortages they had to overcome. Heck they were still making their front line fighter planes partially out of wood even in 1945. Also don't misinterpret me here, I am not saying the T-34 was a bad tank, just unreliable and prone to fires, which does not make it a bad tank. Additionally to to reiterate an earlier point I made. Throughout the war, by far the main cause of fires in tanks was the ammunition being hit when the tank was knocked out....
Agree completly jet turbines may be good for airplanes, but all tanks fit with them got flawed like the Stvrs-103 and the T-80 did, one of the most annoying things abou the fuel consumision on the abrams is that they need consume more at slow speed than at high speed forcing the crew to be at a rush. I think M1 is good for killing other tanks, but ONLY for that!
No T-90s, and no Abrams were destroyed. The Abrams has yet to go against a legit opponent, and when I compared nearly every aspect about these tanks, the Abrams is probably on top of the modern world, it still needs to fight another modern tank.
intellegence63smart. Very good delivery. It is very well managed the effect of a Tank Company in advance and positioning front line of a row although it would be a risky move, but not much to hide in a desert.... really? haahhahahaa. Congratulations!
M-60 later versions upgraded to 105 mm guns which would probably be well able to punch through the armour of a T-72 due to the soviet mentality of light armour with bigger guns for more offensive tactics. T-72 has a 125 mm gun with an auto-loader that was troublesome at times but would be able to punch through the armour of th M-60, as for speed, the T-72 is lighter and a bit faster, while wester style tanks focus more on larger size with more defensive tactics, so it still boils down to tactics
What? I know the M1 was infinitely better than the T-72. I was just saying that there are "M" Export models. Yes in future weapons "M" means modernised. T-72 was always a funny one, The M model had no composite armour, it was just 300mm of steel and the gun was 10x less effective and the turret controls were manual. The Best Export version they used was the T-72S. This was still a terrible Variant of the original. Put a T-72M Next To a T-72BM or even the T-72BA itr looks like a Sherman.
There is nothing wrong per se, however, wood is less durable and heavier than metal like aluminum. So if you don't have to use wood in an airplane design you are generally better off.
Allied High Command acknowledged that in any theatre of the war and in a fair fight, the Germans generally had the upper hand. The advantage the Allies had lay in strength of numbers and this ultimately proved the difference; Nothing exemplifies this more than the Sherman which, bar a few later models such as the Firefly, was an unmitigated disaster
I agree, if not for the Sherman tanks or America in general , then Russian's would not be here with their opinions..=0 However, Sherman tanks were no match to German tanks, but our tank commanders picked up the slack, Although, Sherman tanks were quite adaptable in most situations..
It doesnt matter that the Panzer 4 had a more powerful gun for a time, even with the short barreled 75mm gun the Sherman could kill a Panzer 4 at greater than 1000 meters, and the Panzer 4 could do the same to the Sherman. Then, once the Sherman became equipped with the 76mm M1 Gun, it had a weapon that was superior to the Panzer 4's 75mm in armor penetration. Compared to the other tanks that Germany fielded, the Tiger did relatively little, it a had a fearsome reputation but you were...
I suppose technically the Panther was considered a medium but I would still argue that it would have fit poorly in the allied OOB, on the other hand the Sherman fit into the OOB perfectly and therefore was an excellent tank.
i didnt say anything about the firefly but even if you take into consideration the unreliability of the panther i think it should still be considered a better vehicle than the Sherman
Challenger Uses Dorchester the improved version of Chobham (I say improved but it's totally different). Consists of Silicon carbide, Titanium boride and in some cases Graphine to reinforce the bonds made into a "Dragon Scale" pattern to distribute the Pressure. There are carbon nanotubes weaved into the structure further increasing the strength. Tungsten carbide w/ Silicon carbide "sandwich" between 2 layers of Scales. There's a set every 100mm. Yes the Ch II is the toughest tank on earth
I don't know what battle you are talking about but In my opinion I think that the t-90 is better, it has an fully automatic reloading system which makes the crew only 3 people unlike the m1 abrams it has a manuel reloading system. But I don't know there are a lot more reasons why I like the T-90.
It really wasn't though, at least not by western standards. When the Americans were given one in 42 it was found to be terribly deficient. The engine died after less than 100 miles and the transmission pretty much proceeded to eat itself. Also the air filters were so crappy that they couldn't imagine why anyone would put them on any kind of vehicle let alone a tank. But all that didn't matter to much really, because at that point in the war the average life of a T-34 was 66km.
So it was more likely to be destroyed in combat before it broke down. And the reliability problems continued throughout the war. During the advance into Germany in 44 and 45 there were Soviet tank divisions that had lost 50% of their strength due to break downs alone. The poor workmanship of the T-34 can't be entirely blamed on the Soviets however. Moving a large portion of your industrial base a few hundred miles will always have a negative effect on the product.
No it wasnt, it was superior to the Panzer 4, which was the most common German tank. It was out matched by the Tiger but they only built 1600 of those so they are of relatively little importance in the scheme of things. The Panther did outclass them in some aspects, it had great frontal armor and a very good gun, but it was unreliable, it guzzled gas, and its side armor was laughable, and it was more expensive and difficult to make than the Sherman.
No, for a T72, its -5, for the T72A it is -6. Either way, after 5-6 rounds, its a whole Russian Motorized Company that M60 just desimated, and I didn't even bring into factor that your precious autoloader can take up to 15 seconds depending onthe position of the turret, and assuming the autoloader even functions after days in the field with only user level maintenance. Also, 'son', even if your older doesn't make you smarter, probably just less informed.
No I am not confusing them. The T-34 had poor ammunition storage just like everyone else, and therefore it burned quite often. It was also a terribly unreliable tank but I wont get into that.
The fact of the matter is, i do, The 140 MM is simply a larger design, just think bigger in each way, and you already proved you know nothing, only the United states has ever dared to fire Depleted Uranium, No other country ever has, Second its a 140MM AUTOLOADER, a french design they abandoned when they where producing the le-clerc, a rather underrated tank, the only reason it lacked this gun was because everyone else was 120MM, No loader, less room needed in the cabin.
M60 is superior to T-72. Proven in Desert Storm: M60's fought T-72s (and other T-sereis) at Kuwait airport (which involved hundreds of tanks). Only 1 M60 lost but crew survived. Also proven in Lebanon where M60s took out Syrian T-72s.
Lol, the simply isnt true. The reason the early M4 had a tendency to catch fire was because of poor ammunition storage, not because of any fuel related issues. And the fuel lines most certainly didnt run through the turret. It may surprise you but the T-34 burned just as often if not more, and it ran on diesel. Also the Panzer 4 tended to burn more often than the Sherman as well.
That's a very strange M60, probably an earlier model. I thought they all had cupolas with machine guns inside of them, but maybe that was a later addition in later models, definitely the 3rd.
That makes sense. It was a very bulky cupola, and the MG was rather complicated. I'm not sure if I'd want to be sitting in that rather exposed position either.
...unlikely to ever see one. As for the the Panther, it was very unreliable, in fact, some of the early models could catch fire without their armor being penetrated. Also, they featured very poor ammo storage so they caught fire more readily than the Sherman ever did. (Though the Sherman was never the firebox that people make it out to be, indeed, it caught fire just as often as other tanks, and with the addition of wet storage it actually caught fire significantly less often than all other...
8 RPGs and 1MILAN AT missile...luck? Did i mention that it was bogged down in a ditch unable to move it's turret or tracks? No that isn't luck, that's toughness. The enemy would've had way more than enough time to aim and fire at "weak points". The tanks sight's were knocked out...it was back in service after six hours. THAT'S why i respect challenger II. Also, the energy from a direct hit from a T-72's 125mm AP gun @ 300m. Light damage, i thik that's impressive. 2 abrams were knocked out by T72
Actually in most battes german tanks where outnumbered to a 0 to 10. :D becouse panzer divisions were not spread along the front. Germans were dig in so allies took heavy looses attacking but when panzers attacked M-18 tank destroyers (defensive units using ambush tactics) did destroy 3 panzers for every M-18 destroyed. Panther was as heavy as a Pershing so yes I can and will compare them both. And I understand that Panther broke down at least as often as a heavy 45ton allied tank.
Shermans wouldnt be build in large numers if US did have money to start tank developement as early as Germans did (1936). If they did, by 1944 they would have Pershings. And I would consider Pershing a better tank than a Panther. M4 was forced into production ASAP just like the Panther but was realiable and won the war advancing, unlike Panther. There was no major German offensive with Panthers that succeeded...
the only reason the m4 succeeded was because in most battles german tanks where outnumbered to a 1 to 10 scale and even in the cases where germans had the upper hand in tanks the allied air superiority wouldn't let them succeed also you cant compare a medium tank like the panther with a heavy tank like the pershing that was built to counter tanks like the tiger
errm, yes there has been 1. It was hit at the side near the whopping great big unprotected APU. It also hit the ludicrously thin Side armour (abrams side armour is 100mm thick) that the RPG-29 can penatrate. So yes, the abrams has been knocked out many times. And it's T-72M (m for monkey model). The Russians are very picky and precise about the names because the tanks are so different.
***** ArmA is the abbreviation of Armed Assault. The game was originally called Operation Flashpoint, but the publisher and developer had a falling out. The developer re-released an updated OFP and called it Armed Assault (ArmA). Then we got ArmA2 and ArmA3 but the pedigree goes way back.
...types. Even so, the Panther did have a more powerful gun and frontal armor than the Sherman thats true, but that doesnt make it an excellent medium tank. The armor scheme for instance was clearly designed for a more defensive role, as pretty much anything could kill it from the sides, even the US 56mm antitank gun could penetrate it from more than 1000m. Also, as I said, it was unreliable and expensive, and therefore I would argue that it would have been a poor tank for the allies...
panzer 4 was kind of better to the sherman because of its canon longer barrel plus the sherman had a really short barrel. also just because the tiger was produced in small numbers doesnt mean it didnt play a great part on the war . Havent heard of the panther being unreliable but even if it was it was still vastly superior to the m4
Wrong, PzIV started with L28 (28*75mm gun caliber = gun length) gun while M4 had L37. PzIV upgraded with L43 and later L48 while Sermans 76mm M1A1 gun was 52 calibre. Firefly 17 pounder had 55 calibres. You really havent heard panther being unreliable? Then you dont know anything about the biggest tank battle in history. When Panthers moved to their assembly areas, 45 out of 200 tanks experienced mechanical problems requiring repair. And the battle didnt even start yet.
Go read up on it. the t-72 upgrade was the T-72AV. The M only standed for modernised in the late 80's. Go read up on it before i send you an article that will shut you up.
You mean -6 depression, son. Reload speed is similar. This is true. Autoloader dont mean faster for some time. But what happens when M60 loader or Abrams loader become tired from lifting of 21-25kg more than 5-6 times? lol
Actually the abrams has been knocked out (not destroyed buut disabled) numerous times by the very effective RPG-29 hitting the side hul. RH armour is nowhere near as effective as that of chobham, yet only the frontal armour uses it. Whenan RPG-29 impacts, it can go through 500mm of Rolled Homogenous armour (RH). the abrams side, posesses 400mm of RH. The RPG-29 to date is the most effective mass produced at gun on earth.
Sorry, typing too fast, i meant T72 is completely incapable of fighting Abrams, Just the Gun system alone is decades ahead of T-72, Depleted Uranium Sabots [Most powerful Anti-tank round so far] where as T-72 is still using HEAT and a faulty auto-loader that tends to rip the hands of its user off when it fails....the Computer package of the M1 is the most advanced in the world, where as, T72....simply does not have a computer.....they really can't be compared to eachother.
Also the "Facts" come from declassified gulf war debriefs and the tank crews themselves. It's safe to say that they're Facts. Unlike the US who's too embarrassed to show their losses to not only enemy fire and IED's. But to the turbines not working, mechanical failure and crew discomfort. Bradleys cannot survive a hit from a BMP's 73mm gun or RPG's. Their armour is 35mm thick. And have been knocked out more than enough times to prove so. Challenger has...0 losses over the period of 2 wars.
I would hardly call 66% losses a victory. Pyrrhic maybe. I'm not familiar with the game but as a former M60A1 Platoon Leader, I see several mistakes this unit made that should not have been. Plus, the IDF would not have made them. Looks like fun though.
RPG 29 would likely knock out the challanger 2 from the side, but the case of the challenger 2 surviving 7 RPG hits is mostly luck. M2 bradleys have survived Being attacked by multiple RPG 7s due to the Iraqi armies ineptness (hitting stowage boxes that act like ERA, not removing the firing pin etc). And any "facts" you will find on the armor of either tank is almost always speculation or disinformation.
Proof please, Challanger has Reactive armor added to its lower plate for a reason, it was a major weakspot in the early models, Second,Leopard uses the same damn computer the American tanks do, infact most of NATO uses it.
actually, if you took how often the challlenger got hit and survived. It's far greater. Holding the record for most direct hits (whilst susstaining ittle damage) (8 RPG-7s 1 MILAN AT missile), direct hit from a T-72 125mm AP round @ 300m. Numerouse IEDs survived. Worst case was an IED penetrated the (at the time) unarmoured bottom.(it's now been upgraded). Don't get me wrong, abrams is tough, but it anin't no Challenger. Oh and CH2 has the longest kill in history at 2.5miles (4Km).
ApocalipticToaster well thats just awesome.. So thay should build a few more thousand and help America out.. That would also be nice in the warship department
@Biogem369 Insulting is a sign of weakness and knowing nothing of the subject. Its well known 105mm can destroy T-72 and early T-80. This is why original Abrams had 105mm and they wanted to upgrade later. At the time this was more then enough to kill any Russian tank and you can carry more ammo, meaning the tank could kill more Russian tanks then if it had 120. Only when the T-80U showed up (1985) a 120mm was needed. 105mm penetrated T-72s in Desert Storm and in the Israeli-Arab wars.
I don't believe in that. M60 can't win t72. Until now t72 still is the main battle tanks of Russia and many other countries. M60 I think it is same level with t62
M1 has been destroyed numerous times. Look up RPG-29 vs abrams. There's footage and photos of disabled abrams going onto trucks, our being laughed at by iraquis. No leopard 2 has been lost, no Challenger I or II has been lost even when under fire. In the three heavyweight champs, M1 comes last, numerous studies and tests have shown. M1 is sold to other countries because there are 8000 of them compared to the 400+ Leopards and Challengers.
@@kurousagi8155 Now put the USMC in the T-72 with superior ammo and tactics and Iraqi conscripts in the T60A1... This is just not realistic. BTW, the Iraqi's also faced Persian M60A1 with T-54/55's and T-62's.
@@thesaw9988 this is true. But you asked “how on earth could Pattons take on a T72 A, B or M.” Clearly the M60A1 is capable of taking on a T-72A or T-72M. Even if the crews were equal in training, the Patton has a chance by virtue of historical precedence.
The early 2000’s music was so epic.
Why does everyone hate on the M1A2 Abrams? I have a cousin that is a tank commander on an Abrams and he has been hit with RPGs, anti tank mines, and countless IEDs and his tank is still operational
I must admit, this game does look good though, I kinda want to play it lol
I think the biggest lesson about tank warfare is that it matters less about what you are fighting and more about who you are fighting, the Germans proved this during the Blitzkreig across France in 1940. French tanks were some of the heaviest armoured in the world at the time but the Germans used there tanks in massed formations in panzerdivisions rather than small units to support the infantry like the french did.Honestly, as far as statistics go, M-60 and T-72 are roughly equal in performance.
Wow, I didn't expect that a team of M60s could beat a team of T72s! Nice going!
im surprised somebody can be surprised by this... side armor is weak on any tank... M60A3 is great at using reverse slope tactics...
Armed Assault, better known as ARMA.
Do you ever play the Steel Beasts Pro series? its a great tank simulator. I have subscribed! Keep up the good work! If youre interested in Steel beasts then you can take a look at my channel :-)
I had the original game and really liked it. the pro version costs a lot more, but looks like it may be worth it. also liked red orchestra 1&2.
you had 0 losses,well done but it would have been better if you had attached a small and fast recon vehicle controlled by yourself to your squadron to scout ahead very quickly.it may not be possible but i had encountered the same inconvenience armoured fist 3.
Abrams has not been knocked out by RPGs, ATGMs or AP rounds either, (considering it takes multiple blocks of C4, Hellfires and Sabot rounds just to scuttle ones that were disabled) but due to the fact that its been in combat in greater numbers it has encountered the specialized shaped charge IEDs sent from Iran.
The fact of the matter is that in combat with similar crews Abrams, Leo 2 and Challenger 2 would perform almost identically.
What the Allies needed was a decent tank that could travel long distances, deal with nearly any threat, and be produced in vast quantities. And thats what they got with the Sherman, In 42 it was probably the best tank in the world and the Allies kept upgrading so that, while it wasnt the monster that the Tiger (which was a heavy tank not a medium) was it could do the job. And the reality of that war was that the medium tank was the king of the battlefield not heavies.
The Americans had been making good tanks since WW2. The M4 Sherman for instance was an excellent tank.
The song is actually called "ES Posthumus - Nara"! Cold Case just used it as theme but it wasn´t writen for Cold Case afaik!
and yes early autoloader were unreliable on pre production models of T-64 but problem was completly sorted after T-64A production models. You have to understand one thing, soviets would not mass produce anything that did not do its job, if autloader was so misrable, trust me they would have gotten rid of it VERY quickly. Only problem with autloader is that it cant cook, or help around the tank, or be extra driver or gunner if situation demands. But advantages far outweigh disadvantages
love the m60 its when the americans started to get their shit together and make GOOD tanks
I know this is an eight year old comment, but that's bullshit. The Sherman came way before it and it's one of, if not THE best tanks of WW2.
WunderDoob it is so great to finally see someone that supports the M1 Abrams tank with facts, not just BS statements. Thank you! :D
Love the Music and awesome video..keep that coming!
P.S: Please can you name the background score? Much appreciated.
Another problem is that the newer ATGMs can't fit in the carousal, and has to sit with the crew, so when they were deployed in Chechnya (Which they forgot to place ERA on the tanks as well) they were being hit by RPG-7s from the sides, and it caused the tanks to be torn to pieces when they wouldn't have if the aforementioned was solved.
Near the end of the war the American army had a fairly decent number of the new Pershing tanks as an answer to heavier German tanks. But the Sherman was the workhorse tank of that war for the western Allies.
Not saying the Abrams is the best, but it has been deployed in FAR greater numbers than the Challenger 2. If you want to argue, choose something better than combat losses.
M-60 versions all had 105s; it was the M-48A5 that had the upgraded 105 replacing the 90. I would rather have a well crewed M-60A1 with modern AP ammo (depleted uranium) than a T-72. (with the blazer armor to btw). T-72 is like other Soviet tanks - it blows up and burns when hit too easily. M-60 not quite as bad, but still vulnerable without adon armor. Your right though, it boils down to tactics and training. The best crew is the on that's gonna win, ie. 67,73, and especially 91 and 2002.
the m60a2 was a very good tank in my pltoon, 4th inf. div.10 armored calvery Vietnamn Centrail highlands, it always got us out of trouble useing canister rounds or H.E.
Not to mention all the material shortages they had to overcome. Heck they were still making their front line fighter planes partially out of wood even in 1945.
Also don't misinterpret me here, I am not saying the T-34 was a bad tank, just unreliable and prone to fires, which does not make it a bad tank. Additionally to to reiterate an earlier point I made. Throughout the war, by far the main cause of fires in tanks was the ammunition being hit when the tank was knocked out....
Agree completly jet turbines may be good for airplanes, but all tanks fit with them got flawed like the Stvrs-103 and the T-80 did, one of the most annoying things abou the fuel consumision on the abrams is that they need consume more at slow speed than at high speed forcing the crew to be at a rush.
I think M1 is good for killing other tanks, but ONLY for that!
Yeah, the Marine M-60A1s used T-72s for target practice at Kuwait city Airporit.
Israelies also chose the M2 over the M85 cupola mounted .50 cal. MG
No T-90s, and no Abrams were destroyed. The Abrams has yet to go against a legit opponent, and when I compared nearly every aspect about these tanks, the Abrams is probably on top of the modern world, it still needs to fight another modern tank.
intellegence63smart.
Very good delivery.
It is very well managed the effect of a Tank Company in advance and positioning front line of a row although it would be a risky move, but not much to hide in a desert.... really? haahhahahaa.
Congratulations!
M-60 later versions upgraded to 105 mm guns which would probably be well able to punch through the armour of a T-72 due to the soviet mentality of light armour with bigger guns for more offensive tactics. T-72 has a 125 mm gun with an auto-loader that was troublesome at times but would be able to punch through the armour of th M-60, as for speed, the T-72 is lighter and a bit faster, while wester style tanks focus more on larger size with more defensive tactics, so it still boils down to tactics
What? I know the M1 was infinitely better than the T-72. I was just saying that there are "M" Export models. Yes in future weapons "M" means modernised. T-72 was always a funny one, The M model had no composite armour, it was just 300mm of steel and the gun was 10x less effective and the turret controls were manual. The Best Export version they used was the T-72S. This was still a terrible Variant of the original. Put a T-72M Next To a T-72BM or even the T-72BA itr looks like a Sherman.
the t90 must be some sort of time travelling tank because the t90 was exhibited in 1993 for the first time
Another problem in the Abrams is that it is more expensive than other tanks wich had comparable or superior attributes.
There is nothing wrong per se, however, wood is less durable and heavier than metal like aluminum. So if you don't have to use wood in an airplane design you are generally better off.
Allied High Command acknowledged that in any theatre of the war and in a fair fight, the Germans generally had the upper hand. The advantage the Allies had lay in strength of numbers and this ultimately proved the difference; Nothing exemplifies this more than the Sherman which, bar a few later models such as the Firefly, was an unmitigated disaster
I agree, if not for the Sherman tanks or America in general , then Russian's would not be here with their opinions..=0 However, Sherman tanks were no match to German tanks, but our tank commanders picked up the slack, Although, Sherman tanks were quite adaptable in most situations..
wait did you want it to look like the battle of The Golan Heights ??
It doesnt matter that the Panzer 4 had a more powerful gun for a time, even with the short barreled 75mm gun the Sherman could kill a Panzer 4 at greater than 1000 meters, and the Panzer 4 could do the same to the Sherman. Then, once the Sherman became equipped with the 76mm M1 Gun, it had a weapon that was superior to the Panzer 4's 75mm in armor penetration.
Compared to the other tanks that Germany fielded, the Tiger did relatively little, it a had a fearsome reputation but you were...
I suppose technically the Panther was considered a medium but I would still argue that it would have fit poorly in the allied OOB, on the other hand the Sherman fit into the OOB perfectly and therefore was an excellent tank.
i didnt say anything about the firefly but even if you take into consideration the unreliability of the panther i think it should still be considered a better vehicle than the Sherman
Challenger Uses Dorchester the improved version of Chobham (I say improved but it's totally different). Consists of Silicon carbide, Titanium boride and in some cases Graphine to reinforce the bonds made into a "Dragon Scale" pattern to distribute the Pressure. There are carbon nanotubes weaved into the structure further increasing the strength. Tungsten carbide w/ Silicon carbide "sandwich" between 2 layers of Scales. There's a set every 100mm. Yes the Ch II is the toughest tank on earth
I don't know what battle you are talking about but In my opinion I think that the t-90 is better, it has an fully automatic reloading system which makes the crew only 3 people unlike the m1 abrams it has a manuel reloading system. But I don't know there are a lot more reasons why I like the T-90.
It really wasn't though, at least not by western standards. When the Americans were given one in 42 it was found to be terribly deficient. The engine died after less than 100 miles and the transmission pretty much proceeded to eat itself. Also the air filters were so crappy that they couldn't imagine why anyone would put them on any kind of vehicle let alone a tank. But all that didn't matter to much really, because at that point in the war the average life of a T-34 was 66km.
And i never implied that Abrams was the best tank in the world, nowhere did i say that, i just said it kicked T-72s ass, something that it infact did.
So it was more likely to be destroyed in combat before it broke down. And the reliability problems continued throughout the war. During the advance into Germany in 44 and 45 there were Soviet tank divisions that had lost 50% of their strength due to break downs alone.
The poor workmanship of the T-34 can't be entirely blamed on the Soviets however. Moving a large portion of your industrial base a few hundred miles will always have a negative effect on the product.
@BoAbkal Yes there is, thanks for mentioning that! You're totally correct.
it is expensive for a reason it has depleted uranium as some of its armor and only 42 have been destroyed in combat sense its release in 1982
No it wasnt, it was superior to the Panzer 4, which was the most common German tank. It was out matched by the Tiger but they only built 1600 of those so they are of relatively little importance in the scheme of things. The Panther did outclass them in some aspects, it had great frontal armor and a very good gun, but it was unreliable, it guzzled gas, and its side armor was laughable, and it was more expensive and difficult to make than the Sherman.
No, for a T72, its -5, for the T72A it is -6. Either way, after 5-6 rounds, its a whole Russian Motorized Company that M60 just desimated, and I didn't even bring into factor that your precious autoloader can take up to 15 seconds depending onthe position of the turret, and assuming the autoloader even functions after days in the field with only user level maintenance. Also, 'son', even if your older doesn't make you smarter, probably just less informed.
No I am not confusing them. The T-34 had poor ammunition storage just like everyone else, and therefore it burned quite often. It was also a terribly unreliable tank but I wont get into that.
The fact of the matter is, i do, The 140 MM is simply a larger design, just think bigger in each way, and you already proved you know nothing, only the United states has ever dared to fire Depleted Uranium, No other country ever has, Second its a 140MM AUTOLOADER, a french design they abandoned when they where producing the le-clerc, a rather underrated tank, the only reason it lacked this gun was because everyone else was 120MM, No loader, less room needed in the cabin.
M60 is superior to T-72.
Proven in Desert Storm: M60's fought T-72s (and other T-sereis) at Kuwait airport (which involved hundreds of tanks). Only 1 M60 lost but crew survived.
Also proven in Lebanon where M60s took out Syrian T-72s.
Lol, the simply isnt true. The reason the early M4 had a tendency to catch fire was because of poor ammunition storage, not because of any fuel related issues. And the fuel lines most certainly didnt run through the turret. It may surprise you but the T-34 burned just as often if not more, and it ran on diesel. Also the Panzer 4 tended to burn more often than the Sherman as well.
WOW you have not left the 1800's!
love the bad tactics in the video, nice cavalry charge and all.
That's a very strange M60, probably an earlier model. I thought they all had cupolas with machine guns inside of them, but maybe that was a later addition in later models, definitely the 3rd.
That makes sense. It was a very bulky cupola, and the MG was rather complicated. I'm not sure if I'd want to be sitting in that rather exposed position either.
Joseph Waddell your right
...unlikely to ever see one.
As for the the Panther, it was very unreliable, in fact, some of the early models could catch fire without their armor being penetrated. Also, they featured very poor ammo storage so they caught fire more readily than the Sherman ever did. (Though the Sherman was never the firebox that people make it out to be, indeed, it caught fire just as often as other tanks, and with the addition of wet storage it actually caught fire significantly less often than all other...
It had little to nothing to do with the fuel on board. Notice for instance that the Germans didn't field a single tank the used diesel...
8 RPGs and 1MILAN AT missile...luck? Did i mention that it was bogged down in a ditch unable to move it's turret or tracks? No that isn't luck, that's toughness. The enemy would've had way more than enough time to aim and fire at "weak points". The tanks sight's were knocked out...it was back in service after six hours. THAT'S why i respect challenger II. Also, the energy from a direct hit from a T-72's 125mm AP gun @ 300m. Light damage, i thik that's impressive. 2 abrams were knocked out by T72
i so wish that arma 3 Tank DLC brings back this tank and the map it was my favorite map and tank i what to play it on arma 3
now
look up Cup (Community Upgrade mod) and you will get the map back atleast. ;) Not sure about the tank.
Actually in most battes german tanks where outnumbered to a 0 to 10. :D becouse panzer divisions were not spread along the front. Germans were dig in so allies took heavy looses attacking but when panzers attacked M-18 tank destroyers (defensive units using ambush tactics) did destroy 3 panzers for every M-18 destroyed.
Panther was as heavy as a Pershing so yes I can and will compare them both. And I understand that Panther broke down at least as often as a heavy 45ton allied tank.
Thanks, sorry if it sound a bit angry or confused :) btw I still think the M60A3 is a good tank I prefer it over the ultra expensive M1 Abrams
Shermans wouldnt be build in large numers if US did have money to start tank developement as early as Germans did (1936). If they did, by 1944 they would have Pershings. And I would consider Pershing a better tank than a Panther.
M4 was forced into production ASAP just like the Panther but was realiable and won the war advancing, unlike Panther. There was no major German offensive with Panthers that succeeded...
the only reason the m4 succeeded was because in most battles german tanks where outnumbered to a 1 to 10 scale and even in the cases where germans had the upper hand in tanks the allied air superiority wouldn't let them succeed also you cant compare a medium tank like the panther with a heavy tank like the pershing that was built to counter tanks like the tiger
errm, yes there has been 1. It was hit at the side near the whopping great big unprotected APU. It also hit the ludicrously thin Side armour (abrams side armour is 100mm thick) that the RPG-29 can penatrate. So yes, the abrams has been knocked out many times. And it's T-72M (m for monkey model). The Russians are very picky and precise about the names because the tanks are so different.
what's wrong with wood figher? *points to hurricane and mosquito*
That game reminds me of Arma II
That's because it is ArmA 1.
It is? oh ok
***** ArmA is the abbreviation of Armed Assault. The game was originally called Operation Flashpoint, but the publisher and developer had a falling out. The developer re-released an updated OFP and called it Armed Assault (ArmA). Then we got ArmA2 and ArmA3 but the pedigree goes way back.
...types.
Even so, the Panther did have a more powerful gun and frontal armor than the Sherman thats true, but that doesnt make it an excellent medium tank. The armor scheme for instance was clearly designed for a more defensive role, as pretty much anything could kill it from the sides, even the US 56mm antitank gun could penetrate it from more than 1000m.
Also, as I said, it was unreliable and expensive, and therefore I would argue that it would have been a poor tank for the allies...
panzer 4 was kind of better to the sherman because of its canon longer barrel plus the sherman had a really short barrel. also just because the tiger was produced in small numbers doesnt mean it didnt play a great part on the war . Havent heard of the panther being unreliable but even if it was it was still vastly superior to the m4
Wrong, PzIV started with L28 (28*75mm gun caliber = gun length) gun while M4 had L37. PzIV upgraded with L43 and later L48 while Sermans 76mm M1A1 gun was 52 calibre. Firefly 17 pounder had 55 calibres.
You really havent heard panther being unreliable? Then you dont know anything about the biggest tank battle in history. When Panthers moved to their assembly areas, 45 out of 200 tanks experienced mechanical problems requiring repair. And the battle didnt even start yet.
We had numbers though, we had triple the amount the germans had, we outnumbered them even though our tanks sucked
Go read up on it. the t-72 upgrade was the T-72AV. The M only standed for modernised in the late 80's. Go read up on it before i send you an article that will shut you up.
Armed Assault Subscribe.
You mean -6 depression, son. Reload speed is similar. This is true. Autoloader dont mean faster for some time. But what happens when M60 loader or Abrams loader become tired from lifting of 21-25kg more than 5-6 times? lol
how is it you can command so many tanks? In stock ARMA it only allows you to control up to three vehicles...??? Great system btw! very good fps.
What sound track you using ??
Это уже полный брет на момент выхода танк Т-72 был лучшим в мире!
Actually the abrams has been knocked out (not destroyed buut disabled) numerous times by the very effective RPG-29 hitting the side hul. RH armour is nowhere near as effective as that of chobham, yet only the frontal armour uses it. Whenan RPG-29 impacts, it can go through 500mm of Rolled Homogenous armour (RH). the abrams side, posesses 400mm of RH. The RPG-29 to date is the most effective mass produced at gun on earth.
Sorry, typing too fast, i meant T72 is completely incapable of fighting Abrams, Just the Gun system alone is decades ahead of T-72, Depleted Uranium Sabots [Most powerful Anti-tank round so far] where as T-72 is still using HEAT and a faulty auto-loader that tends to rip the hands of its user off when it fails....the Computer package of the M1 is the most advanced in the world, where as, T72....simply does not have a computer.....they really can't be compared to eachother.
Also the "Facts" come from declassified gulf war debriefs and the tank crews themselves. It's safe to say that they're Facts. Unlike the US who's too embarrassed to show their losses to not only enemy fire and IED's. But to the turbines not working, mechanical failure and crew discomfort. Bradleys cannot survive a hit from a BMP's 73mm gun or RPG's. Their armour is 35mm thick. And have been knocked out more than enough times to prove so. Challenger has...0 losses over the period of 2 wars.
I would hardly call 66% losses a victory. Pyrrhic maybe. I'm not familiar with the game but as a former M60A1 Platoon Leader, I see several mistakes this unit made that should not have been. Plus, the IDF would not have made them. Looks like fun though.
This is ArmA?
Is it possible to command multiple platoons as a company commander? I remember it being impossible in OFP.
Alica Ljungberg That feature wasn't introduced until 2nd part.
RPG 29 would likely knock out the challanger 2 from the side, but the case of the challenger 2 surviving 7 RPG hits is mostly luck. M2 bradleys have survived Being attacked by multiple RPG 7s due to the Iraqi armies ineptness (hitting stowage boxes that act like ERA, not removing the firing pin etc). And any "facts" you will find on the armor of either tank is almost always speculation or disinformation.
seriously how many tanks did you have?
Proof please, Challanger has Reactive armor added to its lower plate for a reason, it was a major weakspot in the early models, Second,Leopard uses the same damn computer the American tanks do, infact most of NATO uses it.
actually, if you took how often the challlenger got hit and survived. It's far greater. Holding the record for most direct hits (whilst susstaining ittle damage) (8 RPG-7s 1 MILAN AT missile), direct hit from a T-72 125mm AP round @ 300m. Numerouse IEDs survived. Worst case was an IED penetrated the (at the time) unarmoured bottom.(it's now been upgraded). Don't get me wrong, abrams is tough, but it anin't no Challenger. Oh and CH2 has the longest kill in history at 2.5miles (4Km).
ApocalipticToaster well thats just awesome.. So thay should build a few more thousand and help America out.. That would also be nice in the warship department
It annoys me so much that EVERYONE used this song for EVERY video...
I believe its Requiem for a Dream
well we talked later, when you are not drugged[iminent=nWWCBAgUWfOB]
once i tryed 20 T55 vs 4 M1A1 and M1A1 won..(i'm not a M1A1 fan)...i shooted 5 times into a M1A1 to kill it...
Lol reds don't resist, they just stay, sooo reaaalistic
@Biogem369
Insulting is a sign of weakness and knowing nothing of the subject.
Its well known 105mm can destroy T-72 and early T-80. This is why original Abrams had 105mm and they wanted to upgrade later. At the time this was more then enough to kill any Russian tank and you can carry more ammo, meaning the tank could kill more Russian tanks then if it had 120.
Only when the T-80U showed up (1985) a 120mm was needed.
105mm penetrated T-72s in Desert Storm and in the Israeli-Arab wars.
@Biogem369 Yes but tactics... I was hiding behind a hill shooting T-72's with my battalion..
I don't believe in that. M60 can't win t72. Until now t72 still is the main battle tanks of Russia and many other countries. M60 I think it is same level with t62
you think the t72 wouldve won since their more armored but i blame lack of strategy.
The song names are in the credits.
Arma evolved so much
And btw, what game is this? It looks like an amazing game
Type in soviet export M models, go on, then we'll se who's dumb shall we?
M1 has been destroyed numerous times. Look up RPG-29 vs abrams. There's footage and photos of disabled abrams going onto trucks, our being laughed at by iraquis. No leopard 2 has been lost, no Challenger I or II has been lost even when under fire. In the three heavyweight champs, M1 comes last, numerous studies and tests have shown. M1 is sold to other countries because there are 8000 of them compared to the 400+ Leopards and Challengers.
How on earth could Pattons take on a T72 A, B or M. You got the Abrams, sure. But back then, you would have been toast.
The M60A1 USMC Payton defeated Iraqi T-72s during the Gulf War. These included T-72 Urals, T-72Ms, and T-72M1s (including Soviet imported T-72M1s.
@@kurousagi8155 Now put the USMC in the T-72 with superior ammo and tactics and Iraqi conscripts in the T60A1... This is just not realistic.
BTW, the Iraqi's also faced Persian M60A1 with T-54/55's and T-62's.
@@thesaw9988 this is true. But you asked “how on earth could Pattons take on a T72 A, B or M.” Clearly the M60A1 is capable of taking on a T-72A or T-72M. Even if the crews were equal in training, the Patton has a chance by virtue of historical precedence.