War Thunder's best Abrams MBT might not even be an Abrams. What even is this tank? Let's find out. The M60 120S in War Thunder! ↓ Social Links ↓ ➤ Twitch: / panzerpaw ➤ Twitter: / panzerpaw ➤ Discord: / discord ---
The confusion was from seeing the crew members not take damage. But looking back at it, I'm now just realising that the turret crew were probably already knocked out.
That would be an interesting addition for manual loading tanks, where it’s random. That would be a bit annoying though, so it’d probably be better if they added like a fatigue system or something where they reload really fast for the first few goes, but slows down with each reload. And then the reload speed shortens after not firing for a bit or something.
One feature you didn’t mention this tank has over a normal Abrams or other nato tanks is a lack there of is the infamous NATO hump so you can shoot behind you
how does the ttd have "top tier rounds" and a "top tier turret"? the same shell can be found at 9.0 on an m60 (the CM11), and the turret isnt too special either
6:01 “slight changes” the M256 has the length of the L/44 which would infer worse penitration indeed yet that slight difference in breech is infac that the M256 breech is rated for 140mm rounds giving it even more chamber pressure than the L/55 only the L/55A1 is on par with the pressure of the M256 and can take the same ammo, an Abrams can take DM53 but a leopard can’t take M829A2 because its breech will fucking explode, sorry if I come across passive aggressive but one has good pen because it eeks out the energy from the combustion of the round, the other one just uses bigger explosion to achieve the same performance, hope this helped
On the topic of the Abrams and Leopard 2 having different loading times the loader position in the Abrams appears to be quite a bit more spacious and almost the entirety of the ammunition is stored within the bustle with the few rounds in the hull rarely being loaded. Compare tgis to the Leopard 2's comparatively more cramped loader position and a large portion of it's ammo being stored in the hull front which hardly seems all that convenient of a spot for both purposes of quick follow up shots and overall long term fatigue on the loader because of this and you'll start to see why a rate of fire difference would occur. These are just my observations of each tank. While I know a lot about them I have not had the chance to work with them...yet. But speaking theoretically these factors should lend the Abrams both a faster "burst" and "sustained" rate of fire with the main gun. The comparatively spacious interior and almost all the rounds being located directly behind the loader would presumably mean less precious moments spent looking for/fishing for a shell or bending down to access hull stored ammunition and also save you seconds later on in a prolonged fight as the loader isn't straining themselves bending down and then lifting tge round up so it can be fit into the breach and sent home.
The reason I mentioned it is because of experience with the Leo. It's possible to load both guns at a similar rate but simulating a manual loader accurately is tricky regardless. Also, just a sidenote, you almost never fight loading from the hull rack. In the case of the Leopard, it's not really even possible unless you rotate the turret a certain way.
Trail and competition shows it is possible to sustain both at a similar rate. I do agree Abrams will likely have a higher max rate simply by having more space to move around. But Abrams has 18 ready round while Leo2 has 15. That's 3 round difference. It is a difference but not a huge amount. Abrams commander has to be out of the seat to access the commander side rack. Opening the door of the secondary stowage will also block access to ready rack. So the location of secondary storage should not have any effect on anything.
@@PanzerPaw gaijin has a long history of balancing with reloads to avoid changing brs the abrams has a larger weakspot than other top mbts and american players complained enough about the DU debacle that they gave the abrams that 5s reload
On the topic of Challengers being slow, i do hope we get rid of the hulls irl if we really wanna stick with the CR3 turrets, switch it out for the Leopard 2A7V/2A8 or KF51 hulls (since RBSL would be the manufacturer)
Hello mr. Panzer i love your videos cause you are funny and chill. And they helps a lot with my mental. What country did you serve for when you were a tank commander?
11:30 The reason a human loader is some times faster than an auto loader is the human loader in the M1A1-A2 variants are on a raised platform slightly above the breach so they dont have to raise the round as high and auto loaders have to raise or lower the gun and have a set reload time but experienced Abrams loader can do it quite quick Pumpkin skew
the upper hull of the M60 is still surprisingly strong on this thing and will probably deflect quite a few shots but the lower hull and neck are then the problems still
I know this might seem a bit annoyinh but it was never proven the abrams had an upgraded hull. Red effect made a video on it and explored the sources that are available and they simply pointed to that only 2 were intended to have their hull upgraded and never happened so they never did actually upgrade the hull.
Dunno who all have said it, but if you have it, try the M60 AMBT, its this, but better overall in my opinion, yes its a M60 turret, but you have the 120mm, much better transmission and engine, and a grenade launcher, though it lacks a rapid aim .50, the commanders cupola .50 does have a fast RoF, but it is a event vehicle, which does mean the AMBT isnt available for everyone like this is
I don't know if anybody else would be interested, but i would be if you made a video about the real life tanks and their capabilities and explaining about how they work
I do wonder if they'll consider giving it the proposed 1200hp engine upgrade (or 1000hp can't remember which), but I'm fine with it staying this historical depiction, but who knows, Gaijin's rules on historical depictions of prototypes/proposed upgrades are a bit all over the place so it could happen
I think many players at 10.0 would benefit if they didnt have a fast vehicle, to have them actually play abrams using its stronger aspects instead of bum rushing. that reload buff did the opposite for most ive encountered this month, theyve become more aggressive. rate of fire is for balancing reason, gaijin gave US mains 5sec reload for abrams after abit of crying and none of them appreciate that now they changed to whinging on the armor. abrams is not a bad tank if someone plays its strenghts. they even managed to be upset about extra ERA on the sides because ''no one uses heat at toptier'', i think they forgot helicopters and atgms and abrams is really annoying to deal with playing them.
I expected this tank to be mid at best and knew it would be slow. I am not joking you that this was EASILY the most BRUTAL stock grind I've had so far. I almost had to stop it was that bad. After you get the big 3 in t4 modifications I am happy to report that it is worthy of the efforts given to get to that point. It's still slow spaded but it's a little more manageable It's slow speed has actually helped me play more patiently in it and my God when you can find a spot to hunker down this tank absolutely POOPS on everything with ease. I am pleasantly surprised at it's capabilities. Anyone that isn't patient will get rocked often and swiftly just know that. This is a sniper and only a sniper.
Driving this vehicle is weird. The firepower is right, but there's just that tickle on your nipple that something about it moving and its overall body is just wrong in every single way lmao
the 120S was made so US to propose for sale on turkey that looked for an update on the M60 they had.. as a proposal to upgrade was to put on a M1 turret .. on the other hand.. the Chrysler propose another tank.. and thats the one that the turkish and israeli stole to make the AMBT-60 that won..so same purpose 2 tanks similar but so different ... as for the M1A1 + tanks in game...... the 5 second reload is the response of the gaijin cause they did not fix the armor on the tank......
What? The AMBT has nothing to do with anything, that thing never even entered service anywhere. The Israelites made the Sabra which they then used to modernize Turkeys M60s. Also the M60 120S wasn’t made for turkey, it was made for countries that have a lot of M60s which they want to be modernized. Egypt and Turkey were the main targets in this project.
120s is like one of those tank RTS game where they can't model Abram properly so they just "yeah good enough"
Son: Mom can I have an Abrams?
Mom: We have Abrams at home.
Abrams at home:
6:49 explains how sabot works
8:34 says that his HEAT round would work better on light tanks
9:25 confused to why his sabot doesnt work on light tank
The confusion was from seeing the crew members not take damage. But looking back at it, I'm now just realising that the turret crew were probably already knocked out.
lol
Abrams at first match be like: yo why your Abrams so small dude
Haha yeah. So many people commented on it in chat. It looks so funny up close.
Please do make a video on ammunition performance!
We would love what knowlage you have gathered over the years!
i second this
agreed
That would be an interesting addition for manual loading tanks, where it’s random. That would be a bit annoying though, so it’d probably be better if they added like a fatigue system or something where they reload really fast for the first few goes, but slows down with each reload. And then the reload speed shortens after not firing for a bit or something.
Now imagine they add a chance for your loader to drop the round and it exploding inside the tank killing everyone
16:25 “there really isn’t anything at 10.0 that can penetrate that”
-laughs in Obj 292 & 2s25M 3bm60
Can that actually pen the turret cheeks tho?
@@PanzerPaw 292 100% can, 3bm60 can close to the gun breach but not on the greater sides
@@DaSteeJ07 292 can pen a battleship at this point
@@PanzerPaw 3bm60 shows that it can go through the cheeks head-on at ranges beyond 2k meters in the protection analysis
One feature you didn’t mention this tank has over a normal Abrams or other nato tanks is a lack there of is the infamous NATO hump so you can shoot behind you
To be fair if you need to shoot directly behind you you're probably not making it out of that situation
Kinda reminds me of the TTD (in premise) You get an experimental tank at 10.0 with top tier rounds, a top tier turret and mediocre speed
how does the ttd have "top tier rounds" and a "top tier turret"?
the same shell can be found at 9.0 on an m60 (the CM11), and the turret isnt too special either
They tried making the Abrams a Sherman 💀
6:01 “slight changes” the M256 has the length of the L/44 which would infer worse penitration indeed yet that slight difference in breech is infac that the M256 breech is rated for 140mm rounds giving it even more chamber pressure than the L/55 only the L/55A1 is on par with the pressure of the M256 and can take the same ammo, an Abrams can take DM53 but a leopard can’t take M829A2 because its breech will fucking explode, sorry if I come across passive aggressive but one has good pen because it eeks out the energy from the combustion of the round, the other one just uses bigger explosion to achieve the same performance, hope this helped
Source?
@@PanzerPawthis might take several days as i cannot remember exactly where i found it or a reliable source therefore, sorry for the wait.
On the topic of the Abrams and Leopard 2 having different loading times the loader position in the Abrams appears to be quite a bit more spacious and almost the entirety of the ammunition is stored within the bustle with the few rounds in the hull rarely being loaded. Compare tgis to the Leopard 2's comparatively more cramped loader position and a large portion of it's ammo being stored in the hull front which hardly seems all that convenient of a spot for both purposes of quick follow up shots and overall long term fatigue on the loader because of this and you'll start to see why a rate of fire difference would occur. These are just my observations of each tank. While I know a lot about them I have not had the chance to work with them...yet.
But speaking theoretically these factors should lend the Abrams both a faster "burst" and "sustained" rate of fire with the main gun. The comparatively spacious interior and almost all the rounds being located directly behind the loader would presumably mean less precious moments spent looking for/fishing for a shell or bending down to access hull stored ammunition and also save you seconds later on in a prolonged fight as the loader isn't straining themselves bending down and then lifting tge round up so it can be fit into the breach and sent home.
The reason I mentioned it is because of experience with the Leo. It's possible to load both guns at a similar rate but simulating a manual loader accurately is tricky regardless. Also, just a sidenote, you almost never fight loading from the hull rack. In the case of the Leopard, it's not really even possible unless you rotate the turret a certain way.
@@PanzerPawbut muh spacious abroomz
Trail and competition shows it is possible to sustain both at a similar rate.
I do agree Abrams will likely have a higher max rate simply by having more space to move around.
But Abrams has 18 ready round while Leo2 has 15. That's 3 round difference. It is a difference but not a huge amount.
Abrams commander has to be out of the seat to access the commander side rack. Opening the door of the secondary stowage will also block access to ready rack. So the location of secondary storage should not have any effect on anything.
@@PanzerPaw gaijin has a long history of balancing with reloads to avoid changing brs
the abrams has a larger weakspot than other top mbts and american players complained enough about the DU debacle that they gave the abrams that 5s reload
@@bdub1682
Tbh, I'm always confused about that.
Outside of Leo and Russian tank, Abrams has literally the best protection accounting for weakspot.
On the topic of Challengers being slow, i do hope we get rid of the hulls irl if we really wanna stick with the CR3 turrets, switch it out for the Leopard 2A7V/2A8 or KF51 hulls (since RBSL would be the manufacturer)
Hello mr. Panzer i love your videos cause you are funny and chill. And they helps a lot with my mental. What country did you serve for when you were a tank commander?
11:30 The reason a human loader is some times faster than an auto loader is the human loader in the M1A1-A2 variants are on a raised platform slightly above the breach so they dont have to raise the round as high and auto loaders have to raise or lower the gun and have a set reload time but experienced Abrams loader can do it quite quick
Pumpkin skew
the upper hull of the M60 is still surprisingly strong on this thing and will probably deflect quite a few shots
but the lower hull and neck are then the problems still
I see this similar to the Jumbo 76 in an up tier. Gotta play more as a second line tank that can react to a situation on the front line.
I know this might seem a bit annoyinh but it was never proven the abrams had an upgraded hull. Red effect made a video on it and explored the sources that are available and they simply pointed to that only 2 were intended to have their hull upgraded and never happened so they never did actually upgrade the hull.
I wish they gave it the 1200hp engine it would have had in production instead of the 750hp from the demonstration one
Can you revisit GHPC and of course do a vid on it ? For their latest update.
I actually like the look of this vehicle
Do not forget that Gas Turbines are alot quieter now.
You all need to take this into consideration when facing T80s too
i will forget
Dunno who all have said it, but if you have it, try the M60 AMBT, its this, but better overall in my opinion, yes its a M60 turret, but you have the 120mm, much better transmission and engine, and a grenade launcher, though it lacks a rapid aim .50, the commanders cupola .50 does have a fast RoF, but it is a event vehicle, which does mean the AMBT isnt available for everyone like this is
I don't know if anybody else would be interested, but i would be if you made a video about the real life tanks and their capabilities and explaining about how they work
I do wonder if they'll consider giving it the proposed 1200hp engine upgrade (or 1000hp can't remember which), but I'm fine with it staying this historical depiction, but who knows, Gaijin's rules on historical depictions of prototypes/proposed upgrades are a bit all over the place so it could happen
They will prpbsbly add the 1200hp one as premium or something.
16:26 - 292 Will reliably penetrate the turret cheeks at up to 1000m
That’s like saying the Porsche tiger 1 isn’t a tiger.
They included the Engine Bulge but not the Upgraded Engine.
If the abrams is the freebrams then what would this be?
hello, my recently new favorite war thunder channel
I think many players at 10.0 would benefit if they didnt have a fast vehicle, to have them actually play abrams using its stronger aspects instead of bum rushing. that reload buff did the opposite for most ive encountered this month, theyve become more aggressive.
rate of fire is for balancing reason, gaijin gave US mains 5sec reload for abrams after abit of crying and none of them appreciate that now they changed to whinging on the armor. abrams is not a bad tank if someone plays its strenghts. they even managed to be upset about extra ERA on the sides because ''no one uses heat at toptier'', i think they forgot helicopters and atgms and abrams is really annoying to deal with playing them.
That abrams is goofy tho
Can you link the sound mod. Ik ypu said it but im too lazy to google it
5:49 I think its because M1 is roomier?
The tank looks like it would throw people off.
How to get a atack drone
I expected this tank to be mid at best and knew it would be slow. I am not joking you that this was EASILY the most BRUTAL stock grind I've had so far. I almost had to stop it was that bad.
After you get the big 3 in t4 modifications I am happy to report that it is worthy of the efforts given to get to that point. It's still slow spaded but it's a little more manageable It's slow speed has actually helped me play more patiently in it and my God when you can find a spot to hunker down this tank absolutely POOPS on everything with ease. I am pleasantly surprised at it's capabilities. Anyone that isn't patient will get rocked often and swiftly just know that. This is a sniper and only a sniper.
ah yes, the horizontally challenged Abrams
I dub this the one and only Patbrams.
why do you keep firing at the leopard's turret it can pen the hull easy
Best abrams not abraming
Driving this vehicle is weird. The firepower is right, but there's just that tickle on your nipple that something about it moving and its overall body is just wrong in every single way lmao
You can hit your top speed in all the challengers except the TES and TF you will never hit it with this thing....
Funny thing is is that the turbine is quieter than diesel engines IRL (at least I think)
I have almost the leo1
Don't ever call the Challengers slow again......
Gonna be funny when this gets a BR increase while the 292 remains unchanged. 😢
Ah yes, shortbrams
Baby abrams
120S is just an Abrams that loves cheese burgers
jo panzerpaw are u german? bc in your one vid u said u was a commander from an leopard 2 ? where u played world of tanks
We germans sell the Leopard 2 all over the world ^^
@@TotallyNotAFox am german too
cute abram
the 120S was made so US to propose for sale on turkey that looked for an update on the M60 they had.. as a proposal to upgrade was to put on a M1 turret ..
on the other hand.. the Chrysler propose another tank.. and thats the one that the turkish and israeli stole to make the AMBT-60 that won..so same purpose 2 tanks similar but so different ...
as for the M1A1 + tanks in game...... the 5 second reload is the response of the gaijin cause they did not fix the armor on the tank......
What? The AMBT has nothing to do with anything, that thing never even entered service anywhere. The Israelites made the Sabra which they then used to modernize Turkeys M60s. Also the M60 120S wasn’t made for turkey, it was made for countries that have a lot of M60s which they want to be modernized. Egypt and Turkey were the main targets in this project.
if nothing explodes i dont care 7:01
😢budget Abrams
It doesn't look good but it's better than then the normal ones
I don’t think it’s fair that its 10.0
Try IWSM instead of RCSM
It's much better
True Aussie!
Pumpkin Skew!
Literally same 😭
hi
too slow
👇one millennium club
Stop like begging
@@Twiggo_The_Foxxo nuh uh
Bro what
@@doctor_golfie4844 what
@@aDeathbomb purposely clicked dislike for the stupid like beg comment.
baby abram :O