for people who are saying the T72M is diffrent from the normal one, the only diffrence is how the turret spins. in the T72M the turret is spu manually. in the normal one its done electronicly. And the M1A2 does have the best frontal armor in history as well as fire control.
@zzerDrezz you don't know how this new tank will do until it's tested in combat. all i can assume right now is that once this is complete, this tank will flank the shit out of your t 90 and blow it straight to hell.
@zzerDrezz oh sure you laugh now, but shit. war isn't about beauty, it's about strategy. and this tank has some good strategic values to it. the looks of it is not for our generation to like anyway. you probably wouldn't notice that think moving in front of your house at night and blowing to kingdom come in your sleep. well maybe the blowing to kingdom come part but you know.
@osloboez To be fair the cockpit of that tank leaving the heads of the driver and gunner exposed to small arms fire was a really stupid idea from the start. Obviously a shorter tank has its advantages but leaving your operators exposed far outweighed that benefit. The purpose behind the short tank being that it presents less of a target for RPG's. It really doesn't make sense to put a Five million dollar tank on the battlefield if it can be knocked out by a two thousand dollar rocket.
@ViolentKisses87 They exposed their heads for show and tell. Tanks expose their heads in other tanks in front of a croud or when there is no combat. I don't know if you didn't noticed in this video at 1:00 to 1:10 that it talks about viewing the battlefield in a 360 degree view inside the tank and pause the video at around 1:12 and tell me if their heads are exposed.
@usmarine845 Fair enough but when talking about a next generation tank why do they need humans in the tank at all?
If your viewing the battlefield from a monitor then why couldn't that monitor be 1000 miles away in a perfectly safe facility like they do with predator and other drones?
It just seems logical to save space otherwise used to house humans for more shells or other hardware or reducing the size of the tank even more.
@ViolentKisses87 That type of technology hasn't been invented yet a tank is complicated to drive from a computer you need a loader to load different types of ammunition you need a commander to communicate with other tanks and the driver and where to go and of course a gunner. Plus it will have take some research to figure it all out which takes time and money. I don't know about tank engineering so I have to talk to my friend who is working in that field.
@usmarine845 Yeah, your right however it wouldn't be too terribly difficult in the space freed up from not having humans inside to place such selecting and loading equipment. I've seen more complex mechanisms on vending machines in Japan.
@ViolentKisses87 It is one thing to have it on vending machines, but it is a totally different to put it on a main battle tank. For a tank to be issued on the field, it has to pass the major factors that experts are looking for some of them are firepower, mobility, speed, innovation, and some others that I don't remember. There is a reason why the japanese don't have unman tanks. We don't have technology to do so and if we do the cost to making those tanks is going to be a major factor.
@usmarine845 I don't see why not. There are plenty of other unmanned ground vehicles coming into service in Afghanistan atm. What part of it would be too difficult? There are vehicles capable of self navigating across treacherous terrain. Lockheed Martin’s SMSS is a good current example but there are others. As far as auto loaders there are the Swedish Archer artillery system and the american NLOS Cannon. I really don't see a problem that hasn't been solved already or is easily solved.
@osloboez It's not cancelled, and we already have a newer version of the Abrams coming out in 2014. We have not cut our military budget at all (which is retarded). We are also getting new assault ships, and aircraft carriers. We are updating almost everything in our arsenal. If you haven't noticed, your country is also in a debt crisis. If our dollar collapses, then it would affect almost every country, so how is it funny when it would affect you?
@bb152005 No. We are really good off, except that greece and spain are drawing the entire euro zone market down.
Yea, and of course its bad if the dollar collapses, thats why it is kinda retarted that the US kepps on spending. Especially FCS was just money-burning even though some stuff from it may be used.
LOL LOL LOL yea yea the tank from which it can not be visually observe TARSH, one EMP hit and he is death . This tank will have the same history as F-22 RAPTOR. :))) hahaha
And last but not least may I remind you that quite a few components used in the M1A2 are from european origin, such as the main armament from Germany/England, or that all its armor is derived from British design?
You're a condescending little twat who evidently has no idea what he's talking about (yet ironically stating others are "talking shit"). A typical teenage internet warrior. Stick to your play-doh and lego tanks buddy. Suits the likes of you.
@Raynor1337 1. My anti-european tirade and use of the word "eurocunt" was aimed primarily at a batshit-crazy troll named DisgorgeKILLUsa who referred to Americans as "americunts". It was my impression at the time that he was European.
2.America DID save Europe. Russian manpower would've been useless & their production would not have gotten into gear in time without the American LEND LEASE ACT & the eventual 2nd front in Normandy, to say nothing of the Industrial Bombing of Germany.
@onanoff2 The "industrial bombing" of Germany is considered by most military historians to have been ineffectual.
And sure, you can say America "saved" Europe from Germany by flogging it the rubber it needed to make tyres etc., but you could also say the European Allies "saved" America from having to resist the massive Eurasian Third Reich (which would have resulted from America failing to sell them that rubber) by performing the lion's share of the actual FIGHTING so you didn't have to.
@Raynor1337 3. The current W.European MBTs are indeed within spitting distance of the M1A2, especially if they could maneuver to a flanking shot at good range. But the frontal armor of the M1A2 is simply too strong to overcome at anything but point blank range, if even that would penetrate. The reason is..
4. The British Chobham has been improved upon in the Abrams with DEPLETED URANIUM INSERTS----a technology which requires the budget of a superpower to fully develop.
Finally, 5) Yes the main gun is of German origin. It's a money-saving measure. The r&d costs would've been too high for only marginal improvement vs. Russian-made armor, it's most likely opponent. The firecontrol, balistic computers, engine, ect are wholly American.
6. Yes I was condescending as hell. But you gotta take it in the context of the earlier dick-headedness from DisgorgeKILLusa. 2 wrongs not making a right? Whatever. Sue me.
Secondly, the M1A2 isn't "head and shoulders" the best tank there is. The competition being, among others, the Leopard 2, Leclerc and Challenger, from as you put it the "eurocunts" (what are you, 10?) are very capable as well. Especially the Leopard 2, which has reactive armor all over, is light, speedy and nimble plus packing a powerful punch. In many people's opinion, it is a more well-rounded tank than the current Abrams.
Onanoff, stop being a tard. Firstly, the US did not "save" Europe at all, arguably Europe had to be 'saved' from itself. Secondly, at the time of the US's involvement in WW2 the British Empire was just as powerful and unmissable in the war effort as the US. If we're talking sheer manpower Russia did the most of the fighting because more than 15 million people died on the eastern front, 12 million more than on the western front where, to you, the US "saved Europe".
@sgtnick09 never see mech and walkers unless they are a robotech idea and can transform. why walkers to big and easy targets.Old ass tech 16inch navel guns what waste. low ranger & power verse a rail gun much lower caliber too.No for a future tank i want a larger low profile vehicle with a MIM-104F (PAC-3) on turret. 2x32-Megajoule navel Railguns.4 Phalanx CIWS aa guns each corner backed by 4 Trophy active protection system each side.1000mm =rh side&top composite armor and electroplate=1500tons
@onanoff2 there is also the option for the tanks to be outfitted with a 140mm ETC gun. and the tank will actually have 40 inches or armor in the front. and there will only be a 2 man crew. this will truly revolutionize the way tanks are designed forever.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@onanoff2 TRANSLATION FOR FAT AMERICUNT RACIAL INFERIOR GAY FAG: All amerocunts are immigrants lol, americunts is not a nation but bunch of deep shit. You inferiority to me in all things. By the way gay, Russia is also better than your shitty country. Yes, I agree with the European civilization are superior to all others
but americunts this is the worst of the Europeans.
@DisgorgeKILLusa LOL.......wtf. Russia is better than my country? In what way? Murder rate? Short lifespan? Largest chunk of it's economy controlled by organized crime? Hahaha......man. Is Russia your saviour, you queerfaggoty slavic piece of walking excrement.....who ALSO FUCKING LIVES IN AMERICA? God damn you're a fucking cowardly piece backward evolution. Cowardly parasite. Europe is SO superior that it had to be saved TWICE BY THE U.S--HAHAHAHAH!! Fucking Euroqueerfag.
@DisgorgeKILLusa "All amerocunts are immigrants lol, americunts is not a nation but bunch of deep shit. You inferiority to me in all things." Yes, the ANCESTORS of many Americans are immigrants from Europe. And Homo Sapiens are descended from from fucking A-P-E-S. What's your fucking point, moron? And as far as "You inferiority"....lol..."to me in all things"....Goddamn. Dude. Get to a fucking American scientist ASAP. I think you're missing a fucking chromosone.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@onanoff2 As you know this shit as well as GAYmerica was founded by Europeans including and Russians hahahahaha. America is a shitty part of Europe on another continent. There is no "americunt superiority in technology" but there americunt inferiority, quite familiar with the history of tanks so you can easily verify this.
@DisgorgeKILLusa You're familiar with the "history" of tanks? Good for you, moron. What year is it? Is it 1942? Nope. Take that T-34 gunbarrel & stick it up your ass. It's 2011. America's M1A2 currently has the best frontal armor & fire control in history. The Western Eurocunts don't even have depleted uranium armor yet because they CAN'T AFFORD THE R&D! And the Russians? LOL....the T90 is a fucking glorified T72. AND WE ALL KNOW HOW AWESOME THAT TANK PERFORMED IN 1991....LOL!!!!
@onanoff2 wrong the changer 2 has the best front armor. then the merkiva mk 4 is the best due to a front based engine. the type 99 and type 10 k2 and ajurn, merkiva all have better fire control and it too the point that their is little difference in the systems. lol euro just sells us their armor then has a better 1 yes the leo lack good armor. oh the hole 3 or 4 they had that were export models and use steel training rounds lol pull your head out your ass.
@onanoff2 The year is 2011 and the Challenger 2 has, not only the best frontal armor, but the best armor all over it. Depleted uranium is a very good (and i mean very good) way of protecting your tanks, but compared to the Chobham Mk.2 Coposite is worse. (the only problem is that its so damn expensive)
It's great that when you guys get in to a war, we got your back with the Chally.
@sectionzeropro Okay. First of all, the nasty, anti-European tone of my BIG MESSAGE (lol) was due to my drunk-ass getting caught up in some flamewar with some batshit-crazy anti-American Islamo-NUTCASE named DisgorgeKillUsa who's account has since been terminated. 2nd, I respectfully disagree with your assessemnt of the latest Chobham armor vs. American Depleted Uranium armor. British fire control may very well have the edge, but against an M1A2,but DU armor is still unsurpassed.
@sectionzeropro cont) Having said that, the Chally (& the Leopard II & LeClerc) do have the sickest fire control yet & really, if it were Euro vs US. one on one, the winner would be the first tank to get a FLANKING shot at close range. The armor of BOTH tanks is tough enough that the victor would be determined at close range. So, yeah, I guess I'm basically agreeing with you, in my roundabout way,lol. Western > Russian. For now, at least.
@onanoff2 Wrong, wrong and wrong. Russians HAVE DU-armor, they don't apply it in peacetime, because of health problems. Also DU is available in europe and does not require special tech, it's just not used in peacetime. Also chobham armor, which M1A2 uses was created in UK, and is used also in challenger 2 which has the best armor in the world IMO. Also Iraqis used T-72M which is export version. It has lower grade fire control systems, lower grade armor, and provided with substandard ammunition.
This fucking barn on the tracks lined sheets of steel is a new tank ? Wow now I understand why the american queers always lose. Americunt style weapon.
@DisgorgeKILLusa If it werent for us 'american queers' your sorry foreign ass would be getting tortured right about now. So quit your bitching cause NO ONE wants to hear it. Oh and our tanks NEVER lost ANY battles, so check yourself before you ATTEMPT to disrespect our country.
@TorresJake001 Is a crap like all shit made in gay usa. americunts are stupid as hell. ameriCUNTs homo loser tanks have always been dog shit - Sherman, m-48 m-60 m-1 - the shame and misery on the tracks that could be worse.
The Sherman was a great tank. Cheap, reliable, and easy to make. All the Allies used it. Hell, even the UK adopted the chassis. The M48 and M60 were interim tanks. They do kinda suck.
The M1 Abrams is a beast. It's in the same league as the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2. And everyone's buying it too.
This 'new' tank seems like crap though. It's probably going to go over it's budget and weigh more than it's supposed to, just like the EFV and a bunch of other projects.
@DisgorgeKILLusa That's why all of the Western world and some more buy our tanks right? Because they want to put their troops in the crappiest tanks out there?
@mtrtrm Thats why no western country has not bought and no put into service any americunt tank. No country in Europe does not use m-1, the most powerful countries of Europe have developed their own tanks are superior to any americunt shit. A weaker nations of Europe just bought a leopard-2, lol.
@DisgorgeKILLusa Still, Western countries used to buy the Sherman back in WWII. The UK is the only one that uses the Challenger 2. A lot of European countries use the Leopard 2, but that's because they are European and it's cheaper to import a tank from Germany that performs just as well as a tank from the US. The M1 Abrams is used to by more countries than the Challenger 2 (Australia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.).
The M1 Abrams is not a piece of junk... But the T90 is.
@mtrtrm abrams is piece of shit and worst then T-90, m-1 worst them all tanks. m-1 = gay. They had no choice and did not have their tanks, they had to use americunt crap. Then they set up their equipment so that the americunt trash-worst in the world. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, backward and weak countries. In addition, they are both are allies of americunts.
@mtrtrm And Australia, and tanks just do not really need. Americunts repeatedly tried to sell all their trash in Europe and not only (Turkey, etc.) but no one bought it. They bought a leopard-2 and Soviet tanks are superior to this cart.
@kirbyroxy No fag, european tanks are superior than amerocunt trash, tanks created in europe study history gaymerican scum. In gay america all tanks are fat like hamburger and coward like bush.
@DisgorgeKILLusa the USA hade the first reactive armar that skiny eurocunts didnt have on there tanks the usa has way better software than eurogaycunt also go you know how far your eurocunt tank shoots that you shuve up ur eurocunt ass also usa has better traind people and better tech than eurocunts think it over you stuck up eurocunt
@DisgorgeKILLusa the europeans have copied designs from the u.s and with out us you european fags would be speaking german so stfu and stop hating on the u.s were all allies so we need to treat eachother like allies
@goarmy979 Pure lie and bullshit. Tanks created in england (europe), americunts a copied them. Europeans created all. I live in shittest cuntry ever - america, we sux. What are you talking about idiot ? WWII Russian won when our fucking america sucked Japanese, Italian and German dicks. Europeans do not copy anything. All European tanks completely original design and have nothing to do with americunt debris.
@goarmy979 It is americunts engaged in a constant stealing other people's development, luring to their country sea of engineers from other countries. The most recent shit that could create americunt tech - m-1 homo tank more than 50% is made up of European development - scheme of armor and the principle of the English ceramic armor design, the 120-mm tank gun German. Upgrading to the M-1A2 also goes in the direction of German development on Leopard-2. M-1 is otdated.
This tank will never happen. You can tell from the uniform from the guy in the video it is a pre 2005 video. Since this video has been made the US's enemies have been killing soldiers by putting bombs in the ground and blowing them up under the tank or humvee or whatever. Since 2005 new armored vehicles have been developed. But they don't sit inches off the ground like this tank. They sit high up and have "V" shaped bottoms to deal with IEDs better. T
This tank wouldnt last two weeks on todays batlefield of insurgency warfare. The next tank may be smaller than the Abrams, but it will be narrower, to fit down city streets. It will be higher up, not lower, to deal with IEDs, and it will have a bigger gun, not smaller.
The second potential alternative is electromagnetic guns. Their main attraction is that they can launch projectiles at more than 3 000m/s, or twice the muzzle velocity of APFSD projectiles fired by current tank guns. The size, weight and other problems associated with electromagnetic guns do not make them a practical proposition for tanks. Nevertheless, there is a belief in the defence ministries of the US . electromagnetic guns might become the main armament of tanks by the year 2015 or so.
@Darkestsides unlikely. Most modern tanks aren't capable of stopping 120/125mm sabot from L44/45/55 guns, and even more when fired at under 1000 meters. So you can ignore that threat, because you wouldn't stop it either. And to resist the rest like ATGM, RPG, Machineguns etc 40t is sufficent
@DisgorgeKILLusa You have no substance WHATSOEVER in your arguments. All you have is illiterate, brain-damaged fucking half-sentences with a strong obsession with GAY SEX. Probably because you've had a shitload of it. EVERY FUCKING STATEMENT YOU'VE MADE ON THIS VIDEO IS UTTERLY LACKING IN ANY FACTUAL STATEMENTS OR RATIONAL, INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT. YOU ARE A DOUBLE-DIGIT-IQ'D PIECE OF SUBHUMAN EXCREMENT THAT MOST DEFINITELY SHOULD NEVER REPRODUCE. I WILL REJOICE IN YOUR FUCKING EXTINCTION.
I wouldn't worry about IED yet since it's fellow tankers will probably keeps bullying the dwarf tank. The tank could seriously suffers psychological damage. One day the dwarf tank gonna pick up a cannon and start shooting everyone in school.
@masterDevis Sure was with a lot of things that make the u.s leading the way heres a few. The f22 at 187 of them, The THEL defenses system even though it could shot down motor and arty rounds, FCS 40 ton MBT, (Most likly all of FCS soon.)EVF, Dragon skin armor(really faked study's to make it look bad.) to name a few.
@MokomaSusi Will as we lack in both we are now falling behind and losing ground in all areas. If they did cancel all FCS programs no power armor too then. M1A3 is basically out in the m1a2sep/tusk. 2 other things i heard was wanted was to lighten to it orginal weight and Get a active kill system mostly likely but i hope not Quick Kill.
@masterDevis Shhhh.....its a secret....it isnt canceled...shhhhh lol....im pretty sure the USA is always making weapon designs. While others are trying to copy us.
@xAlexTobiasxB If this "piece of shit" has the same horse power engine as the Abrams, then it definitely has much better maneuverability, since it's 20 tonnes lighter.
...Yall Fuckin up. What happens if you drive through sand. You are FUCKED! We got Japan, Russia, South Korea and plenty other countries making tanks, but yall give us this...this unwanted Broken Condom style tank. It looks like a big pile of ass.
Thats a nice tank its height is much smaller than the M1A1 but the main gun looks kinda weird compared to recent manufactured tanks but why every modern U.S military vehicle has to be STEALTH I mean being stealth is a good think but really I would get tired making things stealth too much to ask for.
@usmc979 If you look at it from the manufactures point of view stealth tech is great, since it's more or less the most expensive military tech available. If you look at it from the a logistics and taxpayers view, it's a huge money sink which hurts the military and the respective country more then it helps.
@notessimodude Actually, u can see that this tank has a suspension system that allows it to move very well on rough terrain too. Just look carefully and you'll see.
@GaunletofDestruction Then why are all the soldiers complaining that it doesn't offer enough protection. They would all rather in an MRAP vehicle, which is the only wheeled vehicle that's worth being kept in the US army.
UHAHAHAAH a muzzle made from a tree so thick and ugly. Remember 1 thing guys if a machine looks ugly - it is shit. All machines which prove their right to be the best in history look nice. T-34, AK-47, K-50, Su-27, German MG-42, American carriers, Satana (SS-18).
@zaco21 I mean, 13 failed tests from 17? & they r still continuing? If that's not a much bigger political will 4 weapons procurement, I don't know what is. The Russians were always willing 2 spend as much money as it was necessary 2 on a certain weapons system. The Americans did not. I mean, if they would've had a systems that would fail 13 tests out of 17, they wouldn't even wanna hear abt that system. But that's not how the Russians think though.
@zaco21 PAK FA. I mean, b4 this fighter came out, they were bragging like crazy abt how they can detect stealth. Maybe they can. But then why did they developed a stealth fighter themselves? Because they can't stand the thought the Americans have something that they don't or something better than them. That's why they r developing the Bulava missiles. They know that their SLBM r inferior 2 the American Trident II & they can't stand that. & look how much money r they spending with the Bulava?
In fact they can detect stealth, but only if the plane is ridiculously close (3km or so). Because they need a new type of sensor, not a ultrasound echo type (radar) or heat (infra-red, and others). They developed the stealth plane themselves because this is the future, radar and infrared and heat sensors can't detect them if they are not to close.
@zaco21 Yeah, stealth, expensive as it is, is the future. Bu the thing is that the Russians always said that stealth is useless & that they can detect it, implying they will never incorporate it on their systems. In reality, they always wanted 2 have what the Americans have. They don't even know how this technology should be used. Just like with the TVC nozzles. They just want 2 have what the Americans have because they r obsessed with not being inferior 2 the Americans in military technology...
cool concept, whats up with the tetragonal gun though?
controlusplease1 1 month ago
@controlusplease1 to reduce RCS.
hotpocketpoison 1 month ago
A t90 can't even stand up to nato tanks so how the fuck is it suppose to destroy this you dumbshits seriously grow a fucking brain.
MrTacoface2 1 month ago
for people who are saying the T72M is diffrent from the normal one, the only diffrence is how the turret spins. in the T72M the turret is spu manually. in the normal one its done electronicly. And the M1A2 does have the best frontal armor in history as well as fire control.
THEABRAMSMBT 1 month ago
'
this tank is okay,,,
i like M1A1 / M1A2 tanks,,,
but top tank name is a MAUS tank is the best tank
bestamerica 2 months ago
Sounds like plasteel. Its the tank from BF2142!
Folgrin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Folgrin,
Sounds like plasteel. Its the tank from BF2142!
Folgrin 2 weeks ago
'
not sound like,,,
it is right word is look like
bestamerica 2 months ago
dont make me laugh. The T90MS is already done. This is just garbage, I still can't see any new american box tanks.
zzerDrezz 2 months ago
@zzerDrezz you don't know how this new tank will do until it's tested in combat. all i can assume right now is that once this is complete, this tank will flank the shit out of your t 90 and blow it straight to hell.
brandeezy108 1 month ago
.....phh...hhhhA-HAHAHAHAHAA!!! WTF IS THAT?? LOL
zzerDrezz 2 months ago
@zzerDrezz oh sure you laugh now, but shit. war isn't about beauty, it's about strategy. and this tank has some good strategic values to it. the looks of it is not for our generation to like anyway. you probably wouldn't notice that think moving in front of your house at night and blowing to kingdom come in your sleep. well maybe the blowing to kingdom come part but you know.
brandeezy108 1 month ago
lol
S00neX 3 months ago
how does that work on snow? or will it sink in to snow?
weaklypaskaa2 3 months ago
Hahahahha and now its cancelled, whatcha say now american cunts?
Financial crisis coming how now, huh?
No more square sucky overhyped 40 ton tanks?
Fucking stole your industry together hahahaaa
osloboez 4 months ago
Comment removed
ViolentKisses87 4 months ago
@osloboez To be fair the cockpit of that tank leaving the heads of the driver and gunner exposed to small arms fire was a really stupid idea from the start. Obviously a shorter tank has its advantages but leaving your operators exposed far outweighed that benefit. The purpose behind the short tank being that it presents less of a target for RPG's. It really doesn't make sense to put a Five million dollar tank on the battlefield if it can be knocked out by a two thousand dollar rocket.
ViolentKisses87 4 months ago
@ViolentKisses87 They exposed their heads for show and tell. Tanks expose their heads in other tanks in front of a croud or when there is no combat. I don't know if you didn't noticed in this video at 1:00 to 1:10 that it talks about viewing the battlefield in a 360 degree view inside the tank and pause the video at around 1:12 and tell me if their heads are exposed.
usmarine845 1 month ago
@usmarine845 Fair enough but when talking about a next generation tank why do they need humans in the tank at all?
If your viewing the battlefield from a monitor then why couldn't that monitor be 1000 miles away in a perfectly safe facility like they do with predator and other drones?
It just seems logical to save space otherwise used to house humans for more shells or other hardware or reducing the size of the tank even more.
ViolentKisses87 1 month ago
@ViolentKisses87 That type of technology hasn't been invented yet a tank is complicated to drive from a computer you need a loader to load different types of ammunition you need a commander to communicate with other tanks and the driver and where to go and of course a gunner. Plus it will have take some research to figure it all out which takes time and money. I don't know about tank engineering so I have to talk to my friend who is working in that field.
usmarine845 1 month ago
@usmarine845 Yeah, your right however it wouldn't be too terribly difficult in the space freed up from not having humans inside to place such selecting and loading equipment. I've seen more complex mechanisms on vending machines in Japan.
ViolentKisses87 1 month ago
@ViolentKisses87 It is one thing to have it on vending machines, but it is a totally different to put it on a main battle tank. For a tank to be issued on the field, it has to pass the major factors that experts are looking for some of them are firepower, mobility, speed, innovation, and some others that I don't remember. There is a reason why the japanese don't have unman tanks. We don't have technology to do so and if we do the cost to making those tanks is going to be a major factor.
usmarine845 4 weeks ago
@usmarine845 I don't see why not. There are plenty of other unmanned ground vehicles coming into service in Afghanistan atm. What part of it would be too difficult? There are vehicles capable of self navigating across treacherous terrain. Lockheed Martin’s SMSS is a good current example but there are others. As far as auto loaders there are the Swedish Archer artillery system and the american NLOS Cannon. I really don't see a problem that hasn't been solved already or is easily solved.
ViolentKisses87 4 weeks ago
@osloboez we say, who cares our country is still 10x better than yours. eat shit
OlderG0ds 3 months ago
@osloboez It's not cancelled, and we already have a newer version of the Abrams coming out in 2014. We have not cut our military budget at all (which is retarded). We are also getting new assault ships, and aircraft carriers. We are updating almost everything in our arsenal. If you haven't noticed, your country is also in a debt crisis. If our dollar collapses, then it would affect almost every country, so how is it funny when it would affect you?
bb152005 3 months ago
@bb152005 No. We are really good off, except that greece and spain are drawing the entire euro zone market down.
Yea, and of course its bad if the dollar collapses, thats why it is kinda retarted that the US kepps on spending. Especially FCS was just money-burning even though some stuff from it may be used.
And I'm just pissed of with hyper-patriotism.
osloboez 3 months ago
@osloboez You think we aren't mad at our government?
Jutzujin 2 months ago
@osloboez I wouldn't talk about us having financial crisis if I were you.
usmarine845 1 month ago
LOL LOL LOL yea yea the tank from which it can not be visually observe TARSH, one EMP hit and he is death . This tank will have the same history as F-22 RAPTOR. :))) hahaha
19stojkovic93 4 months ago
Wasn't this project cancelled??
alfa8 4 months ago
Looks cool. If it protects against IED's even better!
kwmkc13 5 months ago
Comment removed
althuras1989 5 months ago
Plastic Tank vs. Flamethrower haha. I'd hate to be the pilot.
althuras1989 5 months ago
@onanoff2
And last but not least may I remind you that quite a few components used in the M1A2 are from european origin, such as the main armament from Germany/England, or that all its armor is derived from British design?
You're a condescending little twat who evidently has no idea what he's talking about (yet ironically stating others are "talking shit"). A typical teenage internet warrior. Stick to your play-doh and lego tanks buddy. Suits the likes of you.
Raynor1337 5 months ago
@Raynor1337 1. My anti-european tirade and use of the word "eurocunt" was aimed primarily at a batshit-crazy troll named DisgorgeKILLUsa who referred to Americans as "americunts". It was my impression at the time that he was European.
2.America DID save Europe. Russian manpower would've been useless & their production would not have gotten into gear in time without the American LEND LEASE ACT & the eventual 2nd front in Normandy, to say nothing of the Industrial Bombing of Germany.
onanoff2 5 months ago
@onanoff2 The "industrial bombing" of Germany is considered by most military historians to have been ineffectual.
And sure, you can say America "saved" Europe from Germany by flogging it the rubber it needed to make tyres etc., but you could also say the European Allies "saved" America from having to resist the massive Eurasian Third Reich (which would have resulted from America failing to sell them that rubber) by performing the lion's share of the actual FIGHTING so you didn't have to.
Vot63 5 months ago
@Raynor1337 3. The current W.European MBTs are indeed within spitting distance of the M1A2, especially if they could maneuver to a flanking shot at good range. But the frontal armor of the M1A2 is simply too strong to overcome at anything but point blank range, if even that would penetrate. The reason is..
4. The British Chobham has been improved upon in the Abrams with DEPLETED URANIUM INSERTS----a technology which requires the budget of a superpower to fully develop.
onanoff2 5 months ago
Finally, 5) Yes the main gun is of German origin. It's a money-saving measure. The r&d costs would've been too high for only marginal improvement vs. Russian-made armor, it's most likely opponent. The firecontrol, balistic computers, engine, ect are wholly American.
6. Yes I was condescending as hell. But you gotta take it in the context of the earlier dick-headedness from DisgorgeKILLusa. 2 wrongs not making a right? Whatever. Sue me.
onanoff2 5 months ago
Secondly, the M1A2 isn't "head and shoulders" the best tank there is. The competition being, among others, the Leopard 2, Leclerc and Challenger, from as you put it the "eurocunts" (what are you, 10?) are very capable as well. Especially the Leopard 2, which has reactive armor all over, is light, speedy and nimble plus packing a powerful punch. In many people's opinion, it is a more well-rounded tank than the current Abrams.
Raynor1337 5 months ago
Onanoff, stop being a tard. Firstly, the US did not "save" Europe at all, arguably Europe had to be 'saved' from itself. Secondly, at the time of the US's involvement in WW2 the British Empire was just as powerful and unmissable in the war effort as the US. If we're talking sheer manpower Russia did the most of the fighting because more than 15 million people died on the eastern front, 12 million more than on the western front where, to you, the US "saved Europe".
Raynor1337 5 months ago
If Russia builds the T-95 then America's next gen tank will have:
1) 120mm ELECTORTHERMAL main gun with the equivelant firepower of a 200+mm conventional gun.
2) THIRTY INCHES of COMPOSITE ARMOR in the hull, which will house the 2 or 3 man crew.
3) State of the art wrap-around sensors for all crew members.
4) ELECTROMAGNETIC ARMOR for the HULL-SIDES & TURRET.
5) Continued SUPERIOR AMERICAN dominance in FIRE CONTROL which makes Russian fire control look fucking retarded,because IT IS.
onanoff2 6 months ago 34
@onanoff2 dude screw tank next tank will be a WALKER WITHA NAVAL 16 INCH!!! GUN AND A DUAL 120MM
sgtnick09 5 months ago
@sgtnick09 never see mech and walkers unless they are a robotech idea and can transform. why walkers to big and easy targets.Old ass tech 16inch navel guns what waste. low ranger & power verse a rail gun much lower caliber too.No for a future tank i want a larger low profile vehicle with a MIM-104F (PAC-3) on turret. 2x32-Megajoule navel Railguns.4 Phalanx CIWS aa guns each corner backed by 4 Trophy active protection system each side.1000mm =rh side&top composite armor and electroplate=1500tons
starknight97 5 months ago in playlist Militär
@sgtnick09 ok fOget walker HOVER TANK WITHstarknight97s ideas
sgtnick09 5 months ago
@onanoff2 keep dreaming
starknight97 5 months ago in playlist Militär
@onanoff2 lol that would be sick
xDvsking666x 4 months ago
@onanoff2
But they doesn't need to...
The T-34 was nothing compared to the Tiger tank...
But there was enough of them to overwhelm...
And that's how it happened...
Orthodoxcrusader 4 months ago
@onanoff2 russian MoD cancel T-95 programm. New gen tank/ifv/rv/apc programm called "Armata". Wait untill 2014.
Ilia1138 1 month ago
@onanoff2 there is also the option for the tanks to be outfitted with a 140mm ETC gun. and the tank will actually have 40 inches or armor in the front. and there will only be a 2 man crew. this will truly revolutionize the way tanks are designed forever.
hotpocketpoison 1 month ago 6
@TheProtocolsofzion agree
DisgorgeKILLusa 6 months ago
ugly.....
shortman698 6 months ago
@shortman698 sure it's secret amerocunt tech
DisgorgeKILLusa 6 months ago
Comment removed
onanoff2 6 months ago
@onanoff2 why you cowardly deleted your gay comment americunt fag ? hahahaha suck taliban dick and slowly die ugly hamburger cocksucker
DisgorgeKILLusa 6 months ago
Comment removed
onanoff2 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@onanoff2 TRANSLATION FOR FAT AMERICUNT RACIAL INFERIOR GAY FAG: All amerocunts are immigrants lol, americunts is not a nation but bunch of deep shit. You inferiority to me in all things. By the way gay, Russia is also better than your shitty country. Yes, I agree with the European civilization are superior to all others
but americunts this is the worst of the Europeans.
DisgorgeKILLusa 6 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa LOL.......wtf. Russia is better than my country? In what way? Murder rate? Short lifespan? Largest chunk of it's economy controlled by organized crime? Hahaha......man. Is Russia your saviour, you queerfaggoty slavic piece of walking excrement.....who ALSO FUCKING LIVES IN AMERICA? God damn you're a fucking cowardly piece backward evolution. Cowardly parasite. Europe is SO superior that it had to be saved TWICE BY THE U.S--HAHAHAHAH!! Fucking Euroqueerfag.
onanoff2 6 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa "All amerocunts are immigrants lol, americunts is not a nation but bunch of deep shit. You inferiority to me in all things." Yes, the ANCESTORS of many Americans are immigrants from Europe. And Homo Sapiens are descended from from fucking A-P-E-S. What's your fucking point, moron? And as far as "You inferiority"....lol..."to me in all things"....Goddamn. Dude. Get to a fucking American scientist ASAP. I think you're missing a fucking chromosone.
onanoff2 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@onanoff2 As you know this shit as well as GAYmerica was founded by Europeans including and Russians hahahahaha. America is a shitty part of Europe on another continent. There is no "americunt superiority in technology" but there americunt inferiority, quite familiar with the history of tanks so you can easily verify this.
DisgorgeKILLusa 6 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa You're familiar with the "history" of tanks? Good for you, moron. What year is it? Is it 1942? Nope. Take that T-34 gunbarrel & stick it up your ass. It's 2011. America's M1A2 currently has the best frontal armor & fire control in history. The Western Eurocunts don't even have depleted uranium armor yet because they CAN'T AFFORD THE R&D! And the Russians? LOL....the T90 is a fucking glorified T72. AND WE ALL KNOW HOW AWESOME THAT TANK PERFORMED IN 1991....LOL!!!!
onanoff2 6 months ago 12
@onanoff2 wrong the changer 2 has the best front armor. then the merkiva mk 4 is the best due to a front based engine. the type 99 and type 10 k2 and ajurn, merkiva all have better fire control and it too the point that their is little difference in the systems. lol euro just sells us their armor then has a better 1 yes the leo lack good armor. oh the hole 3 or 4 they had that were export models and use steel training rounds lol pull your head out your ass.
starknight97 5 months ago in playlist Militär
@onanoff2 lol
xDvsking666x 4 months ago
@onanoff2 The year is 2011 and the Challenger 2 has, not only the best frontal armor, but the best armor all over it. Depleted uranium is a very good (and i mean very good) way of protecting your tanks, but compared to the Chobham Mk.2 Coposite is worse. (the only problem is that its so damn expensive)
It's great that when you guys get in to a war, we got your back with the Chally.
Chally = MOST Accurate, best defence
Abe = Most Damaging, BEST attack
The perfect pair in war
sectionzeropro 3 months ago
@sectionzeropro Okay. First of all, the nasty, anti-European tone of my BIG MESSAGE (lol) was due to my drunk-ass getting caught up in some flamewar with some batshit-crazy anti-American Islamo-NUTCASE named DisgorgeKillUsa who's account has since been terminated. 2nd, I respectfully disagree with your assessemnt of the latest Chobham armor vs. American Depleted Uranium armor. British fire control may very well have the edge, but against an M1A2,but DU armor is still unsurpassed.
onanoff2 3 months ago
@sectionzeropro cont) Having said that, the Chally (& the Leopard II & LeClerc) do have the sickest fire control yet & really, if it were Euro vs US. one on one, the winner would be the first tank to get a FLANKING shot at close range. The armor of BOTH tanks is tough enough that the victor would be determined at close range. So, yeah, I guess I'm basically agreeing with you, in my roundabout way,lol. Western > Russian. For now, at least.
onanoff2 3 months ago
@onanoff2 even the most weakest antitank gun can take T72 and all thouse other extra armored sovietmade shit out of order!
tanello2 3 months ago
@tanello2 LOL thats true
THEABRAMSMBT 1 month ago
@onanoff2 "America's M1A2 currently has the best frontal armor" What?
Does Challenger2 and Leopard2 not exist anymore? :S
scrapper1280 2 months ago
@onanoff2 Wrong, wrong and wrong. Russians HAVE DU-armor, they don't apply it in peacetime, because of health problems. Also DU is available in europe and does not require special tech, it's just not used in peacetime. Also chobham armor, which M1A2 uses was created in UK, and is used also in challenger 2 which has the best armor in the world IMO. Also Iraqis used T-72M which is export version. It has lower grade fire control systems, lower grade armor, and provided with substandard ammunition.
ottokiiski 2 months ago
@ottokiiski
soviet or russian/ukraine tank never have DU armour only "Sloyenka" with "dinamicheskaya zashita" (composite and reactive armour)
Ilia1138 1 month ago
Comment removed
onanoff2 6 months ago
why the square barrel?
dopefish93 6 months ago
Wow , this is the most good looking tank ever . Can You Tell Me The Name of It Please ??? Thank you
2012ageoflight 6 months ago
gone are they days that tanks looked cool. now they look retarded. oh well, hopefully they work.
178thbattlegroup 6 months ago
This fucking barn on the tracks lined sheets of steel is a new tank ? Wow now I understand why the american queers always lose. Americunt style weapon.
DisgorgeKILLusa 7 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa If it werent for us 'american queers' your sorry foreign ass would be getting tortured right about now. So quit your bitching cause NO ONE wants to hear it. Oh and our tanks NEVER lost ANY battles, so check yourself before you ATTEMPT to disrespect our country.
TorresJake001 7 months ago
@TorresJake001 Is a crap like all shit made in gay usa. americunts are stupid as hell. ameriCUNTs homo loser tanks have always been dog shit - Sherman, m-48 m-60 m-1 - the shame and misery on the tracks that could be worse.
DisgorgeKILLusa 7 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa - Haterrrr.
The Sherman was a great tank. Cheap, reliable, and easy to make. All the Allies used it. Hell, even the UK adopted the chassis. The M48 and M60 were interim tanks. They do kinda suck.
The M1 Abrams is a beast. It's in the same league as the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2. And everyone's buying it too.
This 'new' tank seems like crap though. It's probably going to go over it's budget and weigh more than it's supposed to, just like the EFV and a bunch of other projects.
mtrtrm 7 months ago
@mtrtrm sherman is a gayest tank ever it's not a tank but pure gay cart full of shit.
All americunts tanks "do kinda suck" not only m-48 and m-60, all.
DisgorgeKILLusa 7 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa That's why all of the Western world and some more buy our tanks right? Because they want to put their troops in the crappiest tanks out there?
mtrtrm 7 months ago
@mtrtrm Thats why no western country has not bought and no put into service any americunt tank. No country in Europe does not use m-1, the most powerful countries of Europe have developed their own tanks are superior to any americunt shit. A weaker nations of Europe just bought a leopard-2, lol.
DisgorgeKILLusa 7 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa Still, Western countries used to buy the Sherman back in WWII. The UK is the only one that uses the Challenger 2. A lot of European countries use the Leopard 2, but that's because they are European and it's cheaper to import a tank from Germany that performs just as well as a tank from the US. The M1 Abrams is used to by more countries than the Challenger 2 (Australia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.).
The M1 Abrams is not a piece of junk... But the T90 is.
mtrtrm 7 months ago
@mtrtrm abrams is piece of shit and worst then T-90, m-1 worst them all tanks. m-1 = gay. They had no choice and did not have their tanks, they had to use americunt crap. Then they set up their equipment so that the americunt trash-worst in the world. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, backward and weak countries. In addition, they are both are allies of americunts.
DisgorgeKILLusa 7 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa Righhhhht. Anyways, I doubt youll ever listen so you can stay ignorant. I'm done trying to present anymore facts to you.
mtrtrm 7 months ago
@mtrtrm our tanks sux
DisgorgeKILLusa 7 months ago
@mtrtrm And Australia, and tanks just do not really need. Americunts repeatedly tried to sell all their trash in Europe and not only (Turkey, etc.) but no one bought it. They bought a leopard-2 and Soviet tanks are superior to this cart.
DisgorgeKILLusa 7 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa hahaha i bet
TheKj2131 6 months ago
@TheKj2131 What you mean ?
DisgorgeKILLusa 6 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa that guy said russain tanks are better
TheKj2131 6 months ago
@TheKj2131 I agree all tank are better than americunt tanks, Europe is better
DisgorgeKILLusa 6 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa dude no eurocunts tanks are copys of us tanks
kirbyroxy 6 months ago
@kirbyroxy No fag, european tanks are superior than amerocunt trash, tanks created in europe study history gaymerican scum. In gay america all tanks are fat like hamburger and coward like bush.
DisgorgeKILLusa 6 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa the USA hade the first reactive armar that skiny eurocunts didnt have on there tanks the usa has way better software than eurogaycunt also go you know how far your eurocunt tank shoots that you shuve up ur eurocunt ass also usa has better traind people and better tech than eurocunts think it over you stuck up eurocunt
kirbyroxy 6 months ago
Comment removed
onanoff2 6 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa thhats why alot of european tanks have copied american tanks even israel copied us
goarmy979 7 months ago in playlist Militarty
@goarmy979 european had nothing and never did copy americunt or kike's shitty tanks lol
It's always americunts copy European techniques - to m-1 is good, only two things German gun
and British armor.
DisgorgeKILLusa 7 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa the europeans have copied designs from the u.s and with out us you european fags would be speaking german so stfu and stop hating on the u.s were all allies so we need to treat eachother like allies
goarmy979 7 months ago
@goarmy979 Pure lie and bullshit. Tanks created in england (europe), americunts a copied them. Europeans created all. I live in shittest cuntry ever - america, we sux. What are you talking about idiot ? WWII Russian won when our fucking america sucked Japanese, Italian and German dicks. Europeans do not copy anything. All European tanks completely original design and have nothing to do with americunt debris.
DisgorgeKILLusa 6 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa Wow that comment had so many fallacies I have no idea where to begin. You're like the people from Westboro Baptist Church!
notessimodude 6 months ago
@goarmy979 It is americunts engaged in a constant stealing other people's development, luring to their country sea of engineers from other countries. The most recent shit that could create americunt tech - m-1 homo tank more than 50% is made up of European development - scheme of armor and the principle of the English ceramic armor design, the 120-mm tank gun German. Upgrading to the M-1A2 also goes in the direction of German development on Leopard-2. M-1 is otdated.
DisgorgeKILLusa 6 months ago
40 tons...light? O.O
i can't ever hear its engine!
cool concepts.
MrTr0llol 7 months ago
This tank will never happen. You can tell from the uniform from the guy in the video it is a pre 2005 video. Since this video has been made the US's enemies have been killing soldiers by putting bombs in the ground and blowing them up under the tank or humvee or whatever. Since 2005 new armored vehicles have been developed. But they don't sit inches off the ground like this tank. They sit high up and have "V" shaped bottoms to deal with IEDs better. T
thethirdwinter 7 months ago
@thethirdwinter
This tank wouldnt last two weeks on todays batlefield of insurgency warfare. The next tank may be smaller than the Abrams, but it will be narrower, to fit down city streets. It will be higher up, not lower, to deal with IEDs, and it will have a bigger gun, not smaller.
thethirdwinter 7 months ago
The second potential alternative is electromagnetic guns. Their main attraction is that they can launch projectiles at more than 3 000m/s, or twice the muzzle velocity of APFSD projectiles fired by current tank guns. The size, weight and other problems associated with electromagnetic guns do not make them a practical proposition for tanks. Nevertheless, there is a belief in the defence ministries of the US . electromagnetic guns might become the main armament of tanks by the year 2015 or so.
radioactivesludge23 8 months ago
Comment removed
radioactivesludge23 8 months ago
Comment removed
radioactivesludge23 8 months ago
Could it take a 120mm sabot though?
Darkestsides 9 months ago
@Darkestsides unlikely. Most modern tanks aren't capable of stopping 120/125mm sabot from L44/45/55 guns, and even more when fired at under 1000 meters. So you can ignore that threat, because you wouldn't stop it either. And to resist the rest like ATGM, RPG, Machineguns etc 40t is sufficent
midgetman2142 8 months ago
amazing how 40 tonnes is light
wyuiqwe7 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@wyuiqwe7 40 tons of shit, a barn and not a tank, they use a barn on the tracks and call it a tank
DisgorgeKILLusa 6 months ago
@DisgorgeKILLusa You have no substance WHATSOEVER in your arguments. All you have is illiterate, brain-damaged fucking half-sentences with a strong obsession with GAY SEX. Probably because you've had a shitload of it. EVERY FUCKING STATEMENT YOU'VE MADE ON THIS VIDEO IS UTTERLY LACKING IN ANY FACTUAL STATEMENTS OR RATIONAL, INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT. YOU ARE A DOUBLE-DIGIT-IQ'D PIECE OF SUBHUMAN EXCREMENT THAT MOST DEFINITELY SHOULD NEVER REPRODUCE. I WILL REJOICE IN YOUR FUCKING EXTINCTION.
onanoff2 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@onanoff2 Why did you block me? I didn't expect my comment to get you Butthurt Rage angry THAT quick.
AnimeSucks4Ever 6 months ago
its not the m1a3 and y would the smartist contry in the world (USA) have there heads sticking out
kirbyroxy 9 months ago
It looks like the Batmobile...
xtracheeez 9 months ago
very ugly I think XD
blackmorth95 9 months ago 2
watch?v=5lqW94Gmug8&feature=player_embedded#at=113
(M1A3 TESTBED TANK)
USAAIRPOWER 9 months ago
@USAAIRPOWER m1a3 is does not exist, another star-stripped crap
DisgorgeKILLusa 6 months ago
Problem. introduce a new tank and make 6000 Abrams obsolete???
aon10003 9 months ago
Comment removed
Blue2Volf 9 months ago
so low to ground, isn't that dangerous when encounter IED buried under ground?
ncs2000 9 months ago
@ncs2000
I wouldn't worry about IED yet since it's fellow tankers will probably keeps bullying the dwarf tank. The tank could seriously suffers psychological damage. One day the dwarf tank gonna pick up a cannon and start shooting everyone in school.
deestilo 9 months ago
It's been four years now. This tank is probably going to rape evey tank out there or it's probably cancel.
ichiquiorra4 9 months ago
This would probably be the tank that the U.N. would use when it forms a standing army.
masterDevis 10 months ago
So it seems like some sort of tank destroyer.
Crisis7 10 months ago
If this thing were to go back in time to World War II Europe, I think this tank would rip a Tiger II apart!
masterDevis 1 year ago
@masterDevis what modern tank wouldn't lol yet i heard it didn't have armor before being canceled.
starknight97 11 months ago
@starknight97 What? This tank was canceled?
masterDevis 11 months ago
@masterDevis Sure was with a lot of things that make the u.s leading the way heres a few. The f22 at 187 of them, The THEL defenses system even though it could shot down motor and arty rounds, FCS 40 ton MBT, (Most likly all of FCS soon.)EVF, Dragon skin armor(really faked study's to make it look bad.) to name a few.
starknight97 11 months ago
@starknight97
FCS was cancelled. They are now working new Abrams model (M1A3) and new IFV concept.
MokomaSusi 11 months ago
@MokomaSusi Will as we lack in both we are now falling behind and losing ground in all areas. If they did cancel all FCS programs no power armor too then. M1A3 is basically out in the m1a2sep/tusk. 2 other things i heard was wanted was to lighten to it orginal weight and Get a active kill system mostly likely but i hope not Quick Kill.
starknight97 11 months ago
@masterDevis Shhhh.....its a secret....it isnt canceled...shhhhh lol....im pretty sure the USA is always making weapon designs. While others are trying to copy us.
xy274 11 months ago
@masterDevis
To be fair, an M1A1 Abrams would too.
BizarreCoyote 10 months ago
what for? Isn't it anouth military power already? Spending cash for killing...
ixonixas 1 year ago
mayor alcance de los proyectiles y altura sigilosa???
hernan267 1 year ago
@xAlexTobiasxB If this "piece of shit" has the same horse power engine as the Abrams, then it definitely has much better maneuverability, since it's 20 tonnes lighter.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
Sound like a great idea, we're probably developing a rc tank for ww3...
dareta 1 year ago
...Yall Fuckin up. What happens if you drive through sand. You are FUCKED! We got Japan, Russia, South Korea and plenty other countries making tanks, but yall give us this...this unwanted Broken Condom style tank. It looks like a big pile of ass.
Flaggedagain 1 year ago
What is the plastic IFV called they showed here at 2:17 ? Does it still exist?
Lachausis 1 year ago
Thats a nice tank its height is much smaller than the M1A1 but the main gun looks kinda weird compared to recent manufactured tanks but why every modern U.S military vehicle has to be STEALTH I mean being stealth is a good think but really I would get tired making things stealth too much to ask for.
usmc979 1 year ago
@usmc979 If you look at it from the manufactures point of view stealth tech is great, since it's more or less the most expensive military tech available. If you look at it from the a logistics and taxpayers view, it's a huge money sink which hurts the military and the respective country more then it helps.
lordcrapalot 1 year ago
thanx for (command and conquer) game for the idea
MrGhaxaal 1 year ago
the thing looks like crap.
reptiles12345 1 year ago
OMG don't you just love being American = powerhouse!
hardcorenyc 1 year ago
I can't find anything on the internet about this tank, aside from links that link to this exact video.
Anyone know the model name or anything?
MercenarySlick 1 year ago
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
whatever0481 1 year ago
@notessimodude Actually, u can see that this tank has a suspension system that allows it to move very well on rough terrain too. Just look carefully and you'll see.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@USMCjunior117 Actually, the gun that was considered for this tank was a 140 mm gun.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@GaunletofDestruction Then why are all the soldiers complaining that it doesn't offer enough protection. They would all rather in an MRAP vehicle, which is the only wheeled vehicle that's worth being kept in the US army.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
i expected something futuristic. not a lighter WW1 tank
heylookarealdinosaur 1 year ago
holly crap wtf is this?
katerosk 1 year ago
THE FUTURE circa 1988
wild50gunner 1 year ago
UHAHAHAAH a muzzle made from a tree so thick and ugly. Remember 1 thing guys if a machine looks ugly - it is shit. All machines which prove their right to be the best in history look nice. T-34, AK-47, K-50, Su-27, German MG-42, American carriers, Satana (SS-18).
Go1andec 1 year ago
As soon as I heard "plastic tank", I went, "DAMMIT!"
I told them...
I told them it was possible, but did anyone listen?
Nope.
pwnrzero 1 year ago
@zaco21 No, it wouldn't. Again, this is jus GDLS bullshit propaganda.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@ehsticazzislimshadyt Laser guns would be stupid, the moment you fire, the enemy has a pinpoint on your location.
r4f4st4n1 1 year ago
@r4f4st4n1 Not if its invisible to the naked eye.
GaunletofDestruction 1 year ago
@GaunletofDestruction That yes, it would be worth it. But is it possible?
r4f4st4n1 1 year ago
@r4f4st4n1 I think it would be possilbe. Maybe DARPA has technology like it.
GaunletofDestruction 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ugly ugly ugly ugly !! :D:D
Eschwege82 1 year ago
it looks like a lamborghini car
HamadHHAG 1 year ago
THere shud be an era when people can buy Tanks and other weapons as normal consumer products!!
Thumbs up if u agree!
lljcool7 1 year ago
i love the future :D
Communist2012 1 year ago
which discovery show was that?
TheDawy22 1 year ago
this is bullshit, m1a1> is better than this
murdan13 1 year ago
When Russians travel abroad it's usually by tank.
SpeedyNeutrino43 1 year ago
looks like the EU tank from BF2142
PowerArmor96 1 year ago
Welcome to the future, it is ugly.
w4rr0ckm4st3r 1 year ago
suspension from drops?
Giganaut233 1 year ago
Incredible ugly tank , ugly design , ugly lines , and i am pretty sure it will be pretty impractical.
0:36 the contour of that tank made me laugh pretty hard.
Vykuk123 1 year ago
One new generation IED will melt those officers to bits if they are so close to the hull! I hope there is improved armor?
Taimak77 1 year ago
@Taimak77 It could be electrical reactive armor.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@Taimak77
Not really. Depends on what the classical armour can take.
zaco21 1 year ago
@zaco21 I mean, 13 failed tests from 17? & they r still continuing? If that's not a much bigger political will 4 weapons procurement, I don't know what is. The Russians were always willing 2 spend as much money as it was necessary 2 on a certain weapons system. The Americans did not. I mean, if they would've had a systems that would fail 13 tests out of 17, they wouldn't even wanna hear abt that system. But that's not how the Russians think though.
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@zaco21 PAK FA. I mean, b4 this fighter came out, they were bragging like crazy abt how they can detect stealth. Maybe they can. But then why did they developed a stealth fighter themselves? Because they can't stand the thought the Americans have something that they don't or something better than them. That's why they r developing the Bulava missiles. They know that their SLBM r inferior 2 the American Trident II & they can't stand that. & look how much money r they spending with the Bulava?
StiviGun1 1 year ago
@StiviGun1
In fact they can detect stealth, but only if the plane is ridiculously close (3km or so). Because they need a new type of sensor, not a ultrasound echo type (radar) or heat (infra-red, and others). They developed the stealth plane themselves because this is the future, radar and infrared and heat sensors can't detect them if they are not to close.
zaco21 1 year ago
@zaco21 Yeah, stealth, expensive as it is, is the future. Bu the thing is that the Russians always said that stealth is useless & that they can detect it, implying they will never incorporate it on their systems. In reality, they always wanted 2 have what the Americans have. They don't even know how this technology should be used. Just like with the TVC nozzles. They just want 2 have what the Americans have because they r obsessed with not being inferior 2 the Americans in military technology...
StiviGun1 1 year ago