it's all about an integrated battle plan, including tanks, IFVs, air support, artillery, medvac, communications, fuel resupply, and supplies. take any of these out, and you are inferior to the enemy who has all these factors covered regardless of what tank you field
@@kevinporter5146 Russia, China, India, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan ....also totally agree with your original comment and these countries could certainly disrupt any of those factors.
Yes. Also Abrams is powered by a gas-turbine - requiring basically aircraft-level technicians + it’s own aircraft fuel supply lines. Abrams require 2-3hours of maintenance for every 1hour of operational use.
It has been stated that if supplied to the Ukrainians, the Abrams tank is more difficult to maintain because of its gas turbine engines which is highly sophisticated and needs special training for the technicians in comparison with the diesel engines of the Challenger and Leopard tanks.
that is a fact. also, every part and system has to be maintained. so you have track mechanics who work on the pack (engine and transmission) and different support personnel for the targeting system and Armour Specialists for the actual weapons. If they send any task they also have to send the M88 or German equivalent to tow the damn tanks because they always break down
Don't sleep on it...this is a time to invest I recently just bought another property valued at over $15m. I wish knew the right investment firm to invest with earlier, better late than never thought.
Not quite the reason. We have T-80U's which are gas turbine as well (uses a helicopter engine/turbine) so there's plenty experience in the engine technology on our side. The real problem is NOT having the ability to have Tier 1 + 2 + 3 repair depos and trained personnel that can diagnose issues on the fly on the ground in Ukraine itself. We have the same issue with the Pzh 2000, where they have to be shipped to Lithuania for repairs. Oftentimes, as many as 1/3 of them are out of commission. It's an unfortunate reality that we have to deal with. It's great that we have partners that are willing to send us weapons and vehicles, just wish it was done with more urgency....
Not that sophisticated. I could have the power pack out in 30 minutes and not rush to do it. It was designed to easily replace a bad engine with a new and sent the bad one back to DEPO maintenance.
Well there is a V4 variant of the Abrams so it might be the M1A3 designation. But there's also the AbramsX (Upgrade) which is a real overhaul, so it also might be it.
Abrams X was a technology demonstrator by General Dynamics - not actually adopted, but instead basically showing what's possible or theoretical for the future
It's crazy that the Abrams has been in production for 30 years and still doesn't have a laser warning receiver. That should have been a priority years ago.
Not sure how useful that is, would cost you $20 to buy a IR laser to constantly point at the tank and have the system go nuts and possibly deplete things like smoke canisters. The crew would get so fed up with it that they would turn it off. Same thing happened to radar detectors in cars, every new car now is broadcasting lasers for lane assist that it keeps tripping them.
somehow was missing the Korean K2 Black Panther in the comparison. Seems to be pretty competitive and available - Poland chose it over the Abrams and the Leopard 2. The new KF51 Panther of course also still is prototype level like the M1A3. Would be interesting, if Germany would restock the Leopard 2 given to Ukraine with KF51...
Tanks operating entirely by themselves is a good way to get destroyed by infantry. The very first thing he said was wrong, but he said it confidently, so I guess that's all matters. 🤷♂️
I’m guessing you watched a different video and unintentionally made a false statement about this one? 😂. “You probably know the importance of main battle tanks on the battlefield.” That’s not wrong to me 🤷♂️
@@Gypsum179 Exactly. T-14 are all individually hand built & even then they might break down on a Victory Day parade. The Indians were trying to make sure Russia had all the money they needed for Su-57, they were screwed the whole way & bailed from the project. Russia is only good at making paper bears XD
The M1A3 will be the world's #2 tank in the world behind the German Panzer ! #1 Russian Armata # 3 Challenger #4 China next , but way behind ! All these MBT are still just in the early production stages ! It remains to be seen how many are produced ! Armata is the early leader ! DML
I often wonder why diesel engines is not used into Air craft? Like planes and Helicopters ? They can fly as well! More dependable than gasoline engines. They use turbos as well
Maybe someone can help me understand why the unprotected rear-most wheel isn’t a dangerous vulnerability. I know little about tanks, but it seems like one decent shot would make it stuck in place and a sitting duck.
Not to talk about one of the most sophisticated Soviet tank designs, talking about the T-80 MBT (also powered by a gas turbine and capable of launching ATGM from the main cannon). Due to this, it was also considered as the main opponent to the M1 Abrams and other similar Western MBTs.
The turbine is a uses fewer parts in the engine than a diesel and is easier to maintain. Therefore if there is an engine problem it is easier and faster to turn around than a diesel. I was involved during testing and development of the turbine engine. The big disadvantage of the turbine is the high fuel consumption.
You must be joking. Russia doesn’t have anything close to a peer to the abrams. You’ll see shortly as they are turned to shrapnel in ukraine. And btw the t-14 doesn’t even exist. It isn’t finished and Russia can’t afford to finish it.
Okay, so you say that the tank is NOT unrivaled, but the graphics on screen say the opposite. And you couldn't pick a picture of an M1A2 without crew climbing all over it? What in the world
The more machine guns, the less you have to reload. . . Not just that but the coax can be reloaded internally, whereas the roof mgs have to be reloaded from outside the tank, and unless using the rc turret version they have to be manned.
I was in the first battalion to receive the original M1 Abrams in 1980 in West Germany. That tank was so much better than the M60's we turned in it wasn't funny. But compared to today's M1 it is old baby lol.
M1A2 SEPv4 will not have an diesel engine, the tank is doomed to maintenance asfk, beside, 80t tank is not an ideal tank (to heavy to say), simple put it US need another MBT, Abrams X should be next step
@@renumihai5263 The US Army has no pressure to replace the AGT-1500 with a diesel engine, the gas turbine is smaller and lighter than a diesel engine, easy to maintain and multi-fuel. Now Abrams has an APU, so idling is greatly reduced. The M1A2SEPv3 weighs 66.7 metric tons.
M1-A2 Looks like the turret has to turn to line up on a target. Can anyone confirm this? The inability of a gun to swivel independently can be crucial.
@@wickedcabinboy A rigid turret has always been too iffy, too far left or two far right. Most good tanks could 'fine tune' their aiming with a crank that would swivel the gun slightly like a field gun. One of the major drawbacks of the Sherman.
@@DavidCraig-go1zv - Perhaps you should explore a few videos on the M1A series of tanks. You might learn a thing or two about how they work. I'm no expert and I don't propose to teach you.
Objection the prices of the American weapons and arms are the highest it's too much expensive and it came with political terms which is sometimes difficult and way over some countries
I think the mistake the author makes is relying on reported Russian stats for their military hardware. It's a given they are prolific liars, so when you base comparisons on lies, well it's pretty much a worthless comparison
What in the world makes you think that? Propaganda is just that, someone's fantasy. The US has never been challenged by an equal. If the US decided to take on Russia in a conventional war, it would lose. For one simple reason, logistics. The only idiots threatening to use nuclear weapons live in WA DC.
@@Mordalo The nearest peer the US has was Russia. And they got clobbered by the poorest country in Europe. The russians most elite Tank corps got wiped out. The only reason Russia is still considered a world power is because it has nukes. And i doubt many of them work proper;y
@@Mordalo And can you tell me a single time since the war in Ukraine started the US has threatened to use it's Nukes? Russia obviously does not know how to fight a Modern war. Sure they can throw ship killer bombs at Gigantic apartment buildings but against an enemy that can actually fight back? They crumble.
@@Brynngar1983 Sure, both POTUS and SECDEF have intemated it. AS to the apartment building, that was not the Russians. You need to catch up with the real world, you won't look so propagandized.
As long as this vehicle still uses only the 120mm L/44 it`s still a 1970th tank and outdated and especially outgunned against modern, korean and european users of 120mm L/55 and 130mm.
The L44 used by the Abrams is not the same gun as the German version. It's built under license in the United States and while it looks the same externally, inside it's completely different. Different mechanism, different propellant, different muzzle velocity as well as DU rounds. There isn't currently a tank in existence it can't take out.
Rumor has it that during the Gulf War a Challenger 2 tank received 190 hits from Iraqui T72s, and the only damage done was the headaches suffered by the British crew. Britain invented the tank, Britain invented Chobham armour, the self-levelling main gun, radar, transistors, computers (back in the early 1900s), and the massed armour strategy that Hitler adopted. Furthermore, modern computer systems could not work without reverse polish notation.... The inventors are in the name. Challenger 3 so much better than Abrams...
Best part is we will finally get definitive proof of superiority of the Leopard 2. Except not really because neither Germany nor USA will send their latest and greatest versions of their tanks. There will always be room for hardliner patriots to claim their countrys tanks are better no matter the outcome.
The Ukraine was is causing a reevaluation of all combat forces around the world. The vulnerability of the MBT to shoulder fired weapons and drones will require either a rethink of the armor, counter-measures, or augmenting tank platoons with counter-measure forces akin to the hunter-killer integration of M2s with M1s in Companies.
There's no such thing as an M1A2C (or D). It was a momentary error on the part of defense officials. The only proper title for these tanks right now is SEPv3 and SEPv4.
What ever happened to the engine replacement they were talking about ? Replacing the incredibly thirst gas turbine with a diesel that would not only be more fuel efficient, but have 200 more HP
I think if we are to be realistic we have to completely drop the T-90 from the list.The T-14 Armata is also a complete joke. If you want to put tanks you can't field on the list then you might as well start adding all sorts of fantasy concepts on here that never made the drawing board. Strongly doubt the small portion that are produced are of any serious quality, either. "It is worth to note that the Abrams can no longer assume the inferiority of opposing tanks," if we are looking at countries that might be hostile to the USA then it sure still can. There are few countries that can sustain as many heavy armour units as the USA so the only time when you need to be concerned if you are suddenly facing an ally with comparable MBTs. That said, keep upgrading it to make sure it stays ahead and keep making sure we can supply allies with them in times of need. The Abrams family of tanks can make a huge difference on the ground.
T-14 "Armata" doesn't have any of those mentioned systems because it's a fucking fake and non-functioning tank. Only a dozen or so units were ever produced and even those break down in the parade. And T-90, which is essentially a rebadged T-72, is no match for Abrams. A whole lot of nonsensical claims in this video.
I don't believe the Russian M14 is on the same level as the Abrams M1ad. The experts said the dameinthing about the the the Russian T-90 tank. But the Abrams shot the hell out of the T-90 durning the war in the middle East. So until these two tanks meet on the battle field the rRussian m-14 is still unproven. I would not bet against the Abrams.
We also gotta remember this weapons also sometimes in battles they never meet thier rival like tanks to tanks fight ,,it's not always ,, example the Japanese built Yamato to encounter the Iowa class but yet she was destroy by the bomber planes of US,, same as Tirpits...
1. It was at a rehearsal 2. The driver didnt had much experience with that tank and pressed brake. 2 mins later you can see that the T-14 drove away alone
Especially with AI enhancement, anti-tank missiles outrageously marginalize the effectiveness of battle tanks, even as storied as this one. Gravity also a severely disadvantages this tank in any kind of deep-mud/snow, more problematically in hilly country. The second law of thermodynamics increasingly makes this weapon a white-elephant.
I still think the M1A2 is the best battle tank in the world BUT it will soon inevitably lose that title The question is who will take the throne? I dont think European tanks will simply because European countries usually dont end up combat testing their stuff very much and are less present in warfare in general and i dont think the eastern countries have the necessary understanding and experience in armored warfare to make the ultimate battletank That leaves only a few countries; mainly the US and Russia However Russia lacked resources to truly mass produce a proper new generation MBT for years and we are not going to see a new American tank until they develop new alloys or require a radical design change
The Challenger 3 will be the best protected tank in the world, and will not run out of fuel as quickly. The Abrams has the German gun which is probably an advantage.
Failed to mention about the new Russian tanks… there’s so very few of them in existence, and even a third of those were test models. Nor do they have the ability to make them in any mass form, anytime soon, especially given the sanctions put onto Russia which keeps the tech they need away from their manufacturers. You ask about getting those materials on the black market? Sure, but there’s no way of getting nearly enough to create a large enough group to be worried about. Advantage, America, by a lot.
The best tank? Abrams by far. Nothing else is in the ballpark or likely will be in the future. The reason? You heard it early. They built 10,000 of them. The others, regardless of country, do not have more than 300 of each model. Hard to maintain? There is no shortage of parts nor information on how to work on them. I wouldn't be surprised if they deal with it by hiring the multitude of ex servicemen who would handle the job.
So you go about the numbers, but that´s not the Question which tank would be better one on one and guess what equal crews assumed Leopard will be still dominent.
Who is going to operate, repair, and support the logistics like ammo & fuel? It takes 4 months of tank school in the US Army and then you are only an amateur.
A tank is only as good as it’s operator! The M1A2 Cis an awesome battle tank but their operators are trained far better than any other country!
Nah. Highly doubt the M1A2 operators are trained any better than other western tank operators.
Keep dreaming the us tank operators are far worse than other nato countries
You know there is a Leopard 2 A7 around? It will be very well matched...
it's all about an integrated battle plan, including tanks, IFVs, air support, artillery, medvac, communications, fuel resupply, and supplies. take any of these out, and you are inferior to the enemy who has all these factors covered regardless of what tank you field
Well duh... it's a good thing the US is quite literally the only force in the world that can do that.
As long as they are fighting a 3rd World country but not a peer.
Who are these peers, now? China? India? Turkey? A coalition of those above? Seriously asking?
@@kevinporter5146 Russia, China, India, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan ....also totally agree with your original comment and these countries could certainly disrupt any of those factors.
@@swk327 ty for your answers... I was just wondering... about serious challenges, and I'm in total lockstep with your opinion.
Tanks should never operate alone. You need dismounted infantry and air/artillery support.
Why are you telling us this? 🤷♂️. We know because we invented the concept 😂. You should be telling the Russians. 🤷♂️
Tightly correlated, combined arms units , is the only way to fight successfully in the modern battle space
@@harrylately1incorrect look at the Russians …
Im really surprised by the insane weight increase over the years. The current Sep 3 version is well over 70 tons and over the limit for many bridges.
Yes. Also Abrams is powered by a gas-turbine - requiring basically aircraft-level technicians + it’s own aircraft fuel supply lines. Abrams require 2-3hours of maintenance for every 1hour of operational use.
@@agl1925 maintenance should be similiar to other tanks though, isnt it?
where we're going...we don't need bridges
Why would it want to cross a bridge ?
@@peterbustin2683 to get to the other side.
It has been stated that if supplied to the Ukrainians, the Abrams tank is more difficult to maintain because of its gas turbine engines which is highly sophisticated and needs special training for the technicians in comparison with the diesel engines of the Challenger and Leopard tanks.
that is a fact. also, every part and system has to be maintained. so you have track mechanics who work on the pack (engine and transmission) and different support personnel for the targeting system and Armour Specialists for the actual weapons. If they send any task they also have to send the M88 or German equivalent to tow the damn tanks because they always break down
Don't sleep on it...this is a time to invest I recently just bought another property valued at over $15m. I wish knew the right investment firm to invest with earlier, better late than never thought.
Not quite the reason. We have T-80U's which are gas turbine as well (uses a helicopter engine/turbine) so there's plenty experience in the engine technology on our side. The real problem is NOT having the ability to have Tier 1 + 2 + 3 repair depos and trained personnel that can diagnose issues on the fly on the ground in Ukraine itself. We have the same issue with the Pzh 2000, where they have to be shipped to Lithuania for repairs. Oftentimes, as many as 1/3 of them are out of commission. It's an unfortunate reality that we have to deal with. It's great that we have partners that are willing to send us weapons and vehicles, just wish it was done with more urgency....
It drinks heavily
Not that sophisticated. I could have the power pack out in 30 minutes and not rush to do it. It was designed to easily replace a bad engine with a new and sent the bad one back to DEPO maintenance.
Thank you from Amsterdam.
Thank you too!
Amazing video! I love how you are improving the design and style of the videos you do! Keep doing it so well and bringing top quality videos!
Thank you so much!!
Well there is a V4 variant of the Abrams so it might be the M1A3 designation. But there's also the AbramsX (Upgrade) which is a real overhaul, so it also might be it.
X is just a test bed to show new technology. Not a planned or expected variant to be built.
The ability to launch mini drones....
I'm confused. I thought the Abrams X is the latest brand new version?? This was not mentioned here.
Abrams X was a technology demonstrator by General Dynamics - not actually adopted, but instead basically showing what's possible or theoretical for the future
3:55 Why did it take six years from the start of manufacturing to delivery? I know this stuff doesn't happen over night......but six years!?
It's crazy that the Abrams has been in production for 30 years and still doesn't have a laser warning receiver. That should have been a priority years ago.
Not sure how useful that is, would cost you $20 to buy a IR laser to constantly point at the tank and have the system go nuts and possibly deplete things like smoke canisters. The crew would get so fed up with it that they would turn it off. Same thing happened to radar detectors in cars, every new car now is broadcasting lasers for lane assist that it keeps tripping them.
somehow was missing the Korean K2 Black Panther in the comparison. Seems to be pretty competitive and available - Poland chose it over the Abrams and the Leopard 2. The new KF51 Panther of course also still is prototype level like the M1A3. Would be interesting, if Germany would restock the Leopard 2 given to Ukraine with KF51...
The Japanese Type 10 is also a very interesting MBT.
I'll take the T14- Armata over the Abrams because it comes standard with the Ukrainian farm tractor tow attachment.
The T-14 is a paper tiger. They only exist on paper. Let's delete that category.
One tip: the audio dubbing whenever you’re talking sounds a bit off. The fades should be a bit smoother
No tank would match this one but the Russian antitank weapons would.
Anachronistic weapons of wars gone past! Missile fodder!
Irrelevant in future wars
M982 Excalibur tech. Game over.
Cool Thank 👍
Thank you too!
Yes as long the enemy not has enought with antitank weapons,they are very efficient today.
Russia have enough anti tanks to destroy all of nato tanks
@@Khalid_Looby Anachronistic weapons of wars gone past! Missile fodder!
Irrelevant in future wars.
Suicide for their crew!
Tanks operating entirely by themselves is a good way to get destroyed by infantry. The very first thing he said was wrong, but he said it confidently, so I guess that's all matters. 🤷♂️
I’m guessing you watched a different video and unintentionally made a false statement about this one? 😂. “You probably know the importance of main battle tanks on the battlefield.” That’s not wrong to me 🤷♂️
How many miles per charge?
The Abrams weakness is it Engine.
What T-14? It's a prototype they built ~20 of. They deployed 3 in Syria, which were killed by TOW. Abrams sure has nothing to fear from it.
Sounds just like the SU-57.
@@Gypsum179 Exactly. T-14 are all individually hand built & even then they might break down on a Victory Day parade. The Indians were trying to make sure Russia had all the money they needed for Su-57, they were screwed the whole way & bailed from the project. Russia is only good at making paper bears XD
If only Patton had an Abrahms... probably wouldnt have our current problems
Since the British Challenger 3 wont be there yes it wont be matched but i still wouldnt want to take on the CH2 in this …
0:41 surprised to see the spelling in your slide wrong... it's called an "ABRAMS"!
The M1A3 will be the world's #2 tank in the world behind the German Panzer ! #1 Russian Armata # 3 Challenger #4
China next , but way behind !
All these MBT
are still just in the early production stages !
It remains to be seen how many are produced !
Armata is the early
leader !
DML
A consumer grade quadcopter could just fly to the gun barrel and spray epoxy into it.
I often wonder why diesel engines is not used into Air craft? Like planes and Helicopters ? They can fly as well! More dependable than gasoline engines. They use turbos as well
What is the gas mileage on M1A2C?
Maybe someone can help me understand why the unprotected rear-most wheel isn’t a dangerous vulnerability. I know little about tanks, but it seems like one decent shot would make it stuck in place and a sitting duck.
Aiming at the tank tracks is a horrible idea. A tank that is unable to move is still extremely dangerous.
@@neverluckybooster2689 Sounds like they're sitting pretty to me. I wouldn't want to be stuck overnight, immobile, waiting for Jesus.
Not to talk about one of the most sophisticated Soviet tank designs, talking about the T-80 MBT (also powered by a gas turbine and capable of launching ATGM from the main cannon). Due to this, it was also considered as the main opponent to the M1 Abrams and other similar Western MBTs.
The turbine is a uses fewer parts in the engine than a diesel and is easier to maintain. Therefore if there is an engine problem it is easier and faster to turn around than a diesel. I was involved during testing and development of the turbine engine. The big disadvantage of the turbine is the high fuel consumption.
You must be joking. Russia doesn’t have anything close to a peer to the abrams. You’ll see shortly as they are turned to shrapnel in ukraine.
And btw the t-14 doesn’t even exist. It isn’t finished and Russia can’t afford to finish it.
@ukrainianpatriot224And what do you have Ukrainitards.
A Smokey black Abrams would look good
Okay, so you say that the tank is NOT unrivaled, but the graphics on screen say the opposite. And you couldn't pick a picture of an M1A2 without crew climbing all over it? What in the world
How would it handle a hit by a rail gun ?
Who's fielding rail guns?
Why do some Abrams have two MGs on the turret (plus the coaxial MG) isn’t that a bit too much?
No, more machine guns the better. Look at Sherman's in ww2 and Israeli scavanged mgs were welded on.
Having more dakka is always better than having less dakka.
@@LentPanic7 See, see you get it.
Because the usually kill goat herders and tribesmen will not be needed if they come against Russia or china
The more machine guns, the less you have to reload. . . Not just that but the coax can be reloaded internally, whereas the roof mgs have to be reloaded from outside the tank, and unless using the rc turret version they have to be manned.
I was in the first battalion to receive the original M1 Abrams in 1980 in West Germany. That tank was so much better than the M60's we turned in it wasn't funny. But compared to today's M1 it is old baby lol.
Such a beauty!
M1A2C = M1A2 SEPv3
M1A2 SEPv4 is already in prototype
M1A2 SEPv4 will not have an diesel engine, the tank is doomed to maintenance asfk, beside, 80t tank is not an ideal tank (to heavy to say), simple put it US need another MBT, Abrams X should be next step
@@renumihai5263 Abrams X is just a technological demonstration, to show what is possible, not ever gonna be contracted for production.
@@renumihai5263 the Abrams is not 80 tons what are you on about.
@@renumihai5263 The US Army has no pressure to replace the AGT-1500 with a diesel engine, the gas turbine is smaller and lighter than a diesel engine, easy to maintain and multi-fuel. Now Abrams has an APU, so idling is greatly reduced. The M1A2SEPv3 weighs 66.7 metric tons.
@@Viktor-fl5mv finally someone with a brain xD
Wagner group need to slide only one Molotov cocktail in it's path to put this tank up in flames
Wagner group got smoked...lol
M1-A2 Looks like the turret has to turn to line up on a target. Can anyone confirm this? The inability of a gun to swivel independently can be crucial.
@David Craig - of course the turret has to turn to line up on a target. That's a feature of all tanks. What are you talking about?
@@wickedcabinboy A rigid turret has always been too iffy, too far left or two far right. Most good tanks could 'fine tune' their aiming with a crank that would swivel the gun slightly like a field gun. One of the major drawbacks of the Sherman.
@@DavidCraig-go1zv - Perhaps you should explore a few videos on the M1A series of tanks. You might learn a thing or two about how they work. I'm no expert and I don't propose to teach you.
Objection the prices of the American weapons and arms are the highest it's too much expensive and it came with political terms which is sometimes difficult and way over some countries
So is the Army going to upgrade the main gun from 120mm to 130mm?
I think the mistake the author makes is relying on reported Russian stats for their military hardware. It's a given they are prolific liars, so when you base comparisons on lies, well it's pretty much a worthless comparison
Shoot 2 target at once ? 4:07
The ak47 is by far the most battle tested weapon in history...
what happened with the sep4?
Lost me when the Armata joined the chat. Armata as it stand will never be deployed in any effective way or number.
When it comes to near peer tanks it will come down to tactics and crew skill. Both of which US/NATO tank crews have an edge.
What in the world makes you think that? Propaganda is just that, someone's fantasy. The US has never been challenged by an equal. If the US decided to take on Russia in a conventional war, it would lose. For one simple reason, logistics. The only idiots threatening to use nuclear weapons live in WA DC.
@@Mordalo The nearest peer the US has was Russia. And they got clobbered by the poorest country in Europe. The russians most elite Tank corps got wiped out.
The only reason Russia is still considered a world power is because it has nukes. And i doubt many of them work proper;y
@@Mordalo And can you tell me a single time since the war in Ukraine started the US has threatened to use it's Nukes?
Russia obviously does not know how to fight a Modern war. Sure they can throw ship killer bombs at Gigantic apartment buildings but against an enemy that can actually fight back? They crumble.
@@Brynngar1983 Sure, both POTUS and SECDEF have intemated it. AS to the apartment building, that was not the Russians. You need to catch up with the real world, you won't look so propagandized.
@@Brynngar1983 What world do you live in? No such thing ever happened. Another sheep.
Optumumly you need jet fuel to run those things.
The new Abrams does not have the most sophisticated Chobham armour: only the Challenger has that.
It will still go boom when an ATGM hits it.
Yeah, give it a new name Homer Simpson
As long as this vehicle still uses only the 120mm L/44 it`s still a 1970th tank and outdated and especially outgunned against modern, korean and european users of 120mm L/55 and 130mm.
The L44 used by the Abrams is not the same gun as the German version. It's built under license in the United States and while it looks the same externally, inside it's completely different. Different mechanism, different propellant, different muzzle velocity as well as DU rounds. There isn't currently a tank in existence it can't take out.
I hope our dementia patient in chief doesn’t give it away to our enemies who bought him off!
I would have serious doubts about a 50 years old construction though.
tell the soviets that 😂
The T14 has never been battle tested so it’s not the best tank until it has been use in battle and survives that battle
It hasn’t been tested because it doesn’t exist; it’s still in development. Russia can’t afford to finish the program and deploy them.
Rumor has it that during the Gulf War a Challenger 2 tank received 190 hits from Iraqui T72s, and the only damage done was the headaches suffered by the British crew.
Britain invented the tank, Britain invented Chobham armour, the self-levelling main gun, radar, transistors, computers (back in the early 1900s), and the massed armour strategy that Hitler adopted.
Furthermore, modern computer systems could not work without reverse polish notation.... The inventors are in the name.
Challenger 3 so much better than Abrams...
😂😂😂😂😂the first word you typed was enough RUMOR 😂
Sounds good. If there is time when Britain needs help in another war go anywhere but, to the U S.
Best part is we will finally get definitive proof of superiority of the Leopard 2. Except not really because neither Germany nor USA will send their latest and greatest versions of their tanks. There will always be room for hardliner patriots to claim their countrys tanks are better no matter the outcome.
The Ukraine was is causing a reevaluation of all combat forces around the world. The vulnerability of the MBT to shoulder fired weapons and drones will require either a rethink of the armor, counter-measures, or augmenting tank platoons with counter-measure forces akin to the hunter-killer integration of M2s with M1s in Companies.
US tanks need redesign: lighter, battery/hybrid power, more fuel efficient engine probably diesel is better
That program got canceled....
This isn't really new my unit was using it in 2020
There's no such thing as an M1A2C (or D). It was a momentary error on the part of defense officials. The only proper title for these tanks right now is SEPv3 and SEPv4.
Um, how do you shoot two targets at the same time with one gun? That said, if the Abramsa was deployed in Europe, it would be in deep trouble.
If the tank operator dies suddenly, then what good is the fancy tank?
just until it needs repairs or service
What ever happened to the engine replacement they were talking about ? Replacing the incredibly thirst gas turbine with a diesel that would not only be more fuel efficient, but have 200 more HP
I think if we are to be realistic we have to completely drop the T-90 from the list.The T-14 Armata is also a complete joke. If you want to put tanks you can't field on the list then you might as well start adding all sorts of fantasy concepts on here that never made the drawing board. Strongly doubt the small portion that are produced are of any serious quality, either.
"It is worth to note that the Abrams can no longer assume the inferiority of opposing tanks," if we are looking at countries that might be hostile to the USA then it sure still can. There are few countries that can sustain as many heavy armour units as the USA so the only time when you need to be concerned if you are suddenly facing an ally with comparable MBTs.
That said, keep upgrading it to make sure it stays ahead and keep making sure we can supply allies with them in times of need. The Abrams family of tanks can make a huge difference on the ground.
T-14 "Armata" doesn't have any of those mentioned systems because it's a fucking fake and non-functioning tank. Only a dozen or so units were ever produced and even those break down in the parade. And T-90, which is essentially a rebadged T-72, is no match for Abrams. A whole lot of nonsensical claims in this video.
The newest Abrams tank ! Have gone to Diesel engines!
Cummins Advanced Combat Engine
Its over 40 years old.
There is a new M1 X not in this video.
Abrams is okay, if you have a whole oil refinery in tow, too !
That was the original Not the newer ones
Why are we fighting Tanks ? Four man crew all the fuel and maintenance to keep it going
superior to farmers who used ak-47
I don't believe the Russian M14 is on the same level as the Abrams M1ad. The experts said the dameinthing about the the the Russian T-90 tank. But the Abrams shot the hell out of the T-90 durning the war in the middle East. So until these two tanks meet on the battle field the rRussian m-14 is still unproven. I would not bet against the Abrams.
Seems the Abrams tanks have only been used in desert sandy countries so far. How will they perform in the muddy Ukraine?
Abraham X...will be unmatched.
Wanna know what the difference is?
We have generational tank boy knowledge and skill in additional to superior weaponry
We also gotta remember this weapons also sometimes in battles they never meet thier rival like tanks to tanks fight ,,it's not always ,, example the Japanese built Yamato to encounter the Iowa class but yet she was destroy by the bomber planes of US,, same as Tirpits...
hi A ...
'
who is a word - SHE -
I heard a lot of blah blah blah and the Abrams is still best. A fully loaded M1A1 heavy is 73 tons… still gets airborne.
If these tanks are so great why the need to try and fix something that isn't broken. Makes sense to upgrade what you already have.
People are always pushing for new contracts. Money money money.
The T14 Armada can’t even perform in a Russian parade without breaking down. 😂😂😂😂
1. It was at a rehearsal
2. The driver didnt had much experience with that tank and pressed brake. 2 mins later you can see that the T-14 drove away alone
Especially with AI enhancement, anti-tank missiles outrageously marginalize the effectiveness of battle tanks, even as storied as this one. Gravity also a severely disadvantages this tank in any kind of deep-mud/snow, more problematically in hilly country. The second law of thermodynamics increasingly makes this weapon a white-elephant.
Anachronistic weapons of wars gone past! Missile fodder!
Irrelevant in future wars.
Suicide for their crew!
I still think the M1A2 is the best battle tank in the world BUT it will soon inevitably lose that title
The question is who will take the throne? I dont think European tanks will simply because European countries usually dont end up combat testing their stuff very much and are less present in warfare in general and i dont think the eastern countries have the necessary understanding and experience in armored warfare to make the ultimate battletank
That leaves only a few countries; mainly the US and Russia
However Russia lacked resources to truly mass produce a proper new generation MBT for years and we are not going to see a new American tank until they develop new alloys or require a radical design change
The Challenger 3 will be the best protected tank in the world, and will not run out of fuel as quickly. The Abrams has the German gun which is probably an advantage.
Russians days of being a serious weapons manufacturer are over for the foreseeable future.
Failed to mention about the new Russian tanks… there’s so very few of them in existence, and even a third of those were test models. Nor do they have the ability to make them in any mass form, anytime soon, especially given the sanctions put onto Russia which keeps the tech they need away from their manufacturers. You ask about getting those materials on the black market? Sure, but there’s no way of getting nearly enough to create a large enough group to be worried about. Advantage, America, by a lot.
Tank is no good without fuel.
we need abrams x
Nope
stop it. seek help
Current Bullshit about Allied tank support to Kyev belies the fact that these days, they're very expensive sitting ducks.
Easily blown up .
RPG 7, $17 per shot
By the time these tanks are operational in the Ukraine, the war could be over. Too little too late.
The Ukraine War proves Russia is mighty on paper
all tanks no matter how good they are in battle & with new high tech drones these tanks are nothing but moving coffins.
I HOPE the U.S. doesn’t send this version to UKRAINE. The last version of this Abrams (M1A1) should be more than adequate and serve them well.💯
The best tank? Abrams by far. Nothing else is in the ballpark or likely will be in the future. The reason? You heard it early. They built 10,000 of them. The others, regardless of country, do not have more than 300 of each model. Hard to maintain? There is no shortage of parts nor information on how to work on them. I wouldn't be surprised if they deal with it by hiring the multitude of ex servicemen who would handle the job.
So you go about the numbers, but that´s not the Question which tank would be better one on one and guess what equal crews assumed Leopard will be still dominent.
Distract the russians with the Abrams, Leopard and Challenger, and blow their T-72 wit a B1 Centauro 76mm Oto Melara naval gun! Fire range, 10 Miles!
Who is going to operate, repair, and support the logistics like ammo & fuel? It takes 4 months of tank school in the US Army and then you are only an amateur.
It would be pulverised by the Russian Tor anti tank missiles in seconds.