@Blueatchley12 The M1 Is a great tank, would destroy any russian or asian vehicle, pretty much equal to the challenger, but I like the challenger a bit more because the engine has that rumble
@Mattc23q lol i know what u mean i love hearing that noise the only sound i like from the abrams in when it starts up and fires its gun makes a BOOM!! and not the leos PAT!!
@Mattc23q dude where do you get your info? the gulf war? lmfao... We faced T-62s and Asad Babil (MBT) which is an inferior copy of the heavily downgraded export version of T-72M that had stupidly thin rolled steel armor, no thermal sights, no ERA, no laser ranging and more. They had No T-72A or T-72B that had full composite armor and ERA. In 1996 tests of M-829A1 failed to penetrate T-72B with ERA. Not to mention we were fighting a 3rd world country. we are giving ourselves a lil too much cred.
@MrAipot No man Georgia isn't in Russia, and Russia attacked Georgian civil targets, it was all in the papers, and what troubles me the most, at the start of the Olympics, peace was declared during the olympics, but Russia still attacked.
@MrAipot I know they are allies and so are china and USA, Iran and North Korea are the real threats, just said so people would open their eyes and stop hating USA, Russia also does bad things, Americans shot at Iraqi civilians too, beacuse they were afraid of insurgency.
Greetings from Greece.I just wanted to see what we are going to buy because we want only the best for our army.German tanks that we allready have are also good,but for some reason Germans are going mad if we want to spend so much money.Fortunately our friends Americans seems that they will give us those tanks.Thank to Europeans we have money.Nikolas,Greece
@PeytonManningguy Don't be silly, according to rounds tested against the M1A1 and the M1A1 SEP. The overall thickness of the armour including DP armour is still less than Challenger 2.
More range and accuracy with th Challenger 2 due to the rifled barrel. Cheaper in cost, similar in combat control tech as the Abrams.
One advantage the Abrams has is it's speed, but that really doesn't count for anything unless you're running!
Now, unless you have fought in any tank do not even talk, boy.
@PeytonManningguy US M1 Abrams tank = British/German gun and British armour. The only thing the US really contributed by the looks of it was the engine, which from what I hear is a pain in the ass because they used some retarded turbine system which gets messed up by sand. So erm, there's really nothing for us Brits to be mad about. Were glad you liked our technology!
@ushockey08 Yeah, but you know what's a more important figure than sheer production numbers? export performance. No one outside the US uses Abrams unless they're contractually required to buy them, like Saudis and Egyptians. The only country to have voluntarily bought m1 is Australia, and even the US had to sweeten the deal. Its the same story with all shit manufactured by the corrupt US military industry. Stryker, Bradley, Abrams; they're shit that no one outside the US touches not even israel.
@TheTokkin I would be inclined to believe you, except Israel uses American made equipment almost exclusively. Not just tanks but F-15s, M-16s etc. I can't even count the number of nations that fly the F-16. Are you suggesting that they are all contractually obligated? More countries choose to buy American made weapons over any other. Which is why the US is the largest arms exporter. I think you might be confused with russian technology. Nobody wants that garbage.
@ushockey08 US weapons trade to countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia (the two main users of abrams besides US) goes like this: the US gives them massive amount of military aid (money), in exchange for a contractual obligation to buy goods from US manufacturers. Israel is, oftentimes, required to do the same (although, they dont touch the worst crap, like Bradley, Stryker and Abrams). Many middle income countries would much rather buy the affordable and time-tested Russian tech.
@TheTokkin Im actually on a program in Iraq right now that sold Iraq 140 M1s. Im getting sick and tired of droping the elevation servo and mount to tighten the bolts that are hand loose on the motor. This is like almost half the tanks and I know the Iraqis are like.....uhhhh, WTF???
@ushockey08 Vehicles like Bradley, Abrams, Stryker are designed by US def contractors to rob the tax payer blind: they're full of expensive and unreliable tech, which is profitable for the contractors because they have a monopoly on many spare parts and in the case of stryker, on maintenance entirely. The reason why pentagon accepts this is because the brass is corrupt they get a share of the loot once they retire and go to work in these very same defense companies, where they get huge salaries.
@TheTokkin you ever been inside of, operated or had your life depend on the operation of one of those vehicles? I can tell you from personal experience that what you stated above is complete and utter bullshit.
@ushockey08 also, a great deal of those m1s are just lying around in open air storage, doing nothing, because they're complicated, unreliable systems are too expensive to fix.
@TheSeneca16 The Abams has the same speed, better armor, better accuracy, the cannons are pretty much similar, and how many Leos have been made? Oh yeah, less than 1,000. How many Abrams have been made? Oh! About 10,000. And they are making an M1A3
Everybody is saying it's ugly. So is the M-107 Sniper rifle. So is the Mi-24 Hind and the AH-64D Apache Longbow. But the ugliest weapons are the only strongest. Just like the 'nerds' OR 'smart' people in life and school get the farthest in Life.
I think the Abrams is only a slightly proven design. When you look at its combat history it has always had air support and was fighting second rate tanks, and tank crews. The tanks is no doubt a top contender but I really wonder how it would stand up to determined opponent in combat.
@BigMrSox A fight, 1-1 M1A3 vs Challenger 2, Challenger would win. But it's cost is much higher per tank, m1a1 is very dependable and low costly compaired to it's combat capability.
Bronx there is freedom of speech in the usa I have protested before on the street you are a typical anti american brainwashed troll who is bashing on the usa out of some biased foreign stereotype if you don't like the usa then don't use you tube an american website.
The gun is 30% stronger than the Abrams. The motor can be changed in 15minutes, has the same power as the turbine of the Abrams, but consumes 40% less fuel is not as vulnerable, and has a significantly lower thermal signature. The Abrams had until now only to do with ridiculous armor, because you would like to stand up garbage cans. Well, but battle-hardened super. Against real opponents, the weaknesses would show directly. The Abrams is for our Leo II cannon fodder!
M1A2: Turret (max.) 880-900 mm vs KE, 1310-1620 vs HEAT,
Glacis (max.) 560-590 mm vs KE, 510-1050 vs HEAT
Lower front hull (max.) 580-650 vs KE, 800-900 vs HEAT
Armor ("classified") is spaced and consisted of 4 layers of high hardness steel (from HRC 40 to HRC 48), 1 layer of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), 1 layer of silicon carbide (SiC), depleted uranium inserts in frontal turret, hard plastic inserts and kevlar spalling layer.
@brox114 um, its 6 layers thick dude, as for whats inside your also wrong. the amunition needed to ever get through is in a tank fight would be heavily depleted uranium rounds. and yeah there is such a thing, try googling it. the rounds are ungodly hard and punch through nearly anything. using high explosive anti tanks rounds like you suggest wouldnt do shit to its armor. the reason you say they got 4 layers is cause you watched future tech, lol sad. I got a cousin that works in GM&CDproduction
@HOORAA Um, "depleted" doesn't mean "hard", it means more U238 and less U235 isotope. You could make 100% "depleted" U238 rounds and they would be just as hard as the regular ones, they'd only be a few grams heavier if anything.
HEAT ammo could wreck an Abrams in a shot or two if it was something like the Javelin. But I don't know of any other top-attack HEAT munitions that heavy.
@Wafflepudding no offensie dude but serious, you know nothing about this stuff, you should serious just be remain silent. cause the further depleted a round gets the harder it is. and no a HEAT round wouldnt do shit to a abrams. they test fire rounds on the armor to see what it does. please just shut up and crawl into your little fail troll hole and die.
@Wafflepudding en wikipedia org/wiki/High_explosive_anti-tank_warhead HEAT works against SOLID armor dumbass. abrams armor is not solid, your just showing how stupied you are.
on DU: enwikipedia org/wiki/Depleted_uranium , also if you need further proofing of how stupied you are, just search how DU works on the web.
you all claim you know all this shit and in truth you dont know jack shit.so shut the fuck up for your own good
Except DU, it can be used W2C or any other dense alloy. I'm have considerable knowledge about military technology and warfare.
Powerful AT weapon will burn trough armor with no problem. Quite a few Abrams tanks were penetrated and destroyed by AT weapons; almost the same number as from IED's.
I didn't watch some "future tech", but I have expert analysis of Abrams armor and capabilities.
Your cousin will not tell you anything crucial because of confidentiality.
@brox114 wrong and seriously doubtful. they use to use the abrams to detonate the IED`s in iraq and afganastan, the ones that EOD couldnt get to in time or wouldnt touch. only the biggest IED`s were just set off at range. they even got something on netflix about it I think. Id have to look through it again
and youd besurprised at what the people can say about the weapons they make. they just cant tell you what its made of
@brox114 If I did the exact same thing to the Leo A7, I'd get the same result. The reason the Abrams has more destroyed is because there are more Abrams deployed. The enemy is more likely to see an Abrams and thus more likely to get lucky and defeat it. If we were to switch the numbers of Abrams and Leos around, the number of casualties would also flip.
The Abrams has the best combination of good design, good crew, and large numbers to be #1 in the world.
That's wrong. Abrams (M1A2 SEP) is not even close to be the best mbt in the world. Only american media likes to exaggerate. Abrams could not even in a dream match Leo 2A6 considering armor, maneuvarability, accurace, firepower and design solutions. Not even to mention 2A7. Roughly the closest M1A2 SEP counterparts are Russian T-90M and Korean K2 Black Panthers. Merkava Mk4, Leo 2A6 and A7 are much better.
@brox114 Bullshit. The Leopard and the Abrams are pretty much the exact same. The Abrams has better armor (almost as good as the famed armor on the Challenger), is faster than the Leopard with the engine govenor removed, more manuverable and performs better due to having a jet engine to power it, has the exact same gun and thus the exact same firepower, and has far more experienced crews to drive them as the Leopard has seen very little combat compared to the Abrams. Abrams is still #1.
Plus, there are 6000 Abrams in service, the largest number out of any of the tanks you listed except possibly for the Russian T-90. Therefore, I rest by my previous statement. The Abrams is the best combination of mobility, firepower, armor, crew experience, and numbers in service of any other MBT in the world. The only real disadvantage the Abrams has is fuel efficiency, and since the U.S are the best in the world at logistics, we're able to provide fuel very easily. Abrams is #1.
From where did you got all this nonsenses? From some BS computer games? Abrams is waaaay overpriced and raised to the heaven. USA's media like to exaggerate very much. Abrams is slower than Leo2A6, has weaker armor, is less maneuvarable, less accurate, has weaker firepower (L44 vs L55) and has a GAS TURBINE engine which is inferior to Diesel engine. Also USA's tank crew are pretty much on the same level with German and Russian. Not better. Learn before you post.
@brox114 Why don't you do some research first. The Abrams is more manuverable than the Leo. With the engine governor removed, the Abrams is the fastest tank in the world. It has better armor than the Leo, and the exact same gun (both 120 mm smoothbore), which therefore gives it the exact same accuracy and firepower. It runs on a MULTI-FUEL JET ENGINE, and actually has a governor on the engine to keep it from going so fast for so long that the TREADS TEAR OFF. In battle, the troops usually take
off the governor when in battle. And ask yourself, how many Leopards are currently deployed in war zones right now? There are thousands of Abrams tanks that see battle. I think we can say that even if everything else I said was wrong, I'm still right when it comes to the fact that the Abrams tank has seen far more combat and thus has far more experienced crew members.
The Abrams is faster, has a better engine, better armor, same gun, and more experienced crews. Abrams is overall better.
... also, Leo 2 has better armor protection than Abrams. M1A2 SEP couldn't go faster than 70 km/h even with governor removed; because it's too fu*king heavy. Initial 1979 M1 Abrams maybe could hit beyond 80 km/h; but not above 90 km/h like it's reported on some web sites. Abrams has an GAS TURBINE engine, which could accept few types of fuel, but Diesel engine is better. Abrams is no match for Leo2A6. Please, don't waste my time with your childish comments.
@brox114 The Abrams can hit over 60 mph with the governor removed (since I'm a yank, I don't know how to convert it to km). It doesn't use a gas turbine. The engine in the Abrams can handle jet fuel, gasoline and diesel, among others. It has better performance and is still just as fast or even faster than the Leopard, even with its heavy weight. There's a reason it drinks fuel. It has very good performance and can use a variety of fuel, but it burns a lot of energy
Abramy engine Honeywell AGT 1500 is an GAS TURBINE. Tanks have two types of engine: Diesels and Gas turbines.
100km/h top speed for Abrams? Are you off your mind? Initial M1 Abrams cannot even reach 90 km/h with governor removed. M1A2 SEP cannot reach 80 km/h with governor removed. M1A2 SEP Abrams needs more than 7 seconds 0-32km/h. Leo 2A6 needs less than 6 seconds. Abrams engine radiate ~3x more heat than Leo's and ~5x more than T-90M.
@brox114 No, it is not. The Abrams tank is powered by a jet engine, not an actual tank engine. It's a multi-fuel engine capable of using a variety of fuel.
That really shows your ignorance. the Abrams can match the speed of the Leo with the governor, which is used to keep the tank far away from its maximum speed. Without the governor, the Abrams tank can indeed reach 60 mph. The Leopard is powered by a modernized V12 engine, used by WW1 airplanes and now cars. The abrams has a jet engine.
Abrams has seen more battle, but it doesn't mean that it's crew is superior to other nations well trained crew.
Considering armor M1A2 SEP closest equvivalent is Russian T-90M and Korean K2, but T-90M has superior maneuvarability and firepower. Electronics are pretty much on the same level. But Leo2A6 and especially 2A7 is today's best MBT considering armor protection, maneuvarability, accuracy and firepower.
@brox114 The armor on the M1A2 SEP is also close to that of the British Chobham armor (famous for being incredibly durable), and out classes the T-90 and the K2. The armor has taken multiple tank blasts with little to no effect. Thanks to the TUSK protection, there are videos of Abrams running over IEDs with little to no effect. The Abrams is better armored than than the Leo, is faster, although I'll admit the Leo's gun is a little better (44 vs 55, though the Abrams has more ammo variety).
In conclusion, don't knock on the Abrams. Training alone isn't going to prepare you for everything. No plan survives contact with the enemy. Experience smooths the edges and gives the crew a better understanding of combat and the enemy. So, while the Germans have good training, the Yanks have good training+experience. The Abrams has better armor, a better engine so it is a bit more manuverable and faster, and, while having a shorter gun, has more ammo variety. The Leo isn't better.
Next time, do some actual research and look up the opinions of people who actually built and drove those tanks. Go look at combat history. Don't just look up specifications. Just reading books and watching movies doesn't make you a war expert. It makes you a hobbyist with knowledge of the subject, but it doesn't make you an expert that the militaries of the world will consult for advice. The Abrams has been around for years and it still has the best combat record, and that's what counts.
What level of military knowledge do you actually have, because in every of your comments you are showed lack of knowledge on military technology. Have ever you been in the army like I was? Is your father maybe active LTC so you can discuss with him about warfare and military technology; like my?
Abrams (M1A2 SEP) is no match in any characteristic to Leo2A6, not even to mention A7.
@brox114 I highly doubt that. You have not mentioned it in any of your previous posts, and your childish insults to the Abrams really makes me think that the closest you've ever been to the military was on the internet. I highly doubt your father was anywhere close to the military either. Any military expert would agree with me that the Abrams tank is one of the most successful and dangerous tanks of all time. Not to mention they would all put more money on crew experience (the Abrams has more)
I mentioned it somewhere, maybe not on this video. Seems to me that your "knowlegde" is based on some computer games - even your own channel is full of some fictous "Godzilla" PC games. I don't play games; I'm realistic and my knowledge is based on books, articles and discussions. My father is active officer with rank of "Pukovnik" (american equvivalent of LTC); and I served in the army as an sniper. Abrams is good tank, but nowhere near to be the best.
@brox114 Anyone can say anything on the internet. My knowledge is mostly based on books, articles, and discussions online. Now I'll admit I don't have any personal experience with the Abrams, but I highly doubt you have any, either. Even if you serve, you are a sniper, not a tanker. All of your knowledge stems from the same resources I have (books, articles, the internet etc). Whatever the case may be, your knowledge of the Abrams is so inaccurate I really have nothing but doubt about your story
And yes, I'm a video gamer. I don't base my knowledge on video games, otherwise, you'd hear me saying something like "OMG, teh Deagle is teh most 1337 gun EVAH! every military shud be using it!1!1!!!" I don't. I admit there are problems on the Abrams, and I think that the Leo and Abrams are tied in effectiveness in combat. However, your ignorant statements about the Abrams makes me think you read only biased sources that amount to nothing but american-bashing. That, I can't trust.
Being sniper in the army doesn't mean that I don't know anything about armor. Everything I said is based on experts analysis and estimations.
Sorry, but you showed very little knowlegde about military technology. With your opinion of Abrams being the best of the best with absulotely no concurency, you only made a fool out of yourself.
Abrams only has (like all american stuff) outstanging marketing.
@brox114 Considering your complete ignorance on the Abrams, I doubt you had expert analysis on that particular tank.
You are only making a fool of yourself. You constantly tell blatant lies about the capabilities of the Leo and the Abrams, which only makes everyone less likely to believe you have any military experience. You got the armor wrong, the engine wrong, and the gun wrong. I doubt you've seen any experts, or you would've been more knowledgeable. Clearly, you are not.
Btw, I posess considerable knowledge about tanks (that includes abrams); unlike YOU WHO SAID THAT ABRAMS USES A JET!!! ENGINE... In which game did you hear/read that? With your comments you showed absolute ingorance about military technology. The thing is that you even fiercely defend your ignorance without being even aware of it. You are free to check my statemnets about tanks to see them.
...and please, kid don't waste my time with your "knowlegde" about tanks from PC games...
@brox114 I didn't read it from any video game. Every game out there only has M1 Abrams, and left it at that. I just posted the website that is the official company website for the product in one of my previous posts. As you can see, clearly, you are the ignorant one. I have checked every single website and have failed to find anything that backs up your claims, although since I think you're Russian, it's probably some Russian website I can't read. All western sources don't back up your claims.
My friend, you are heavily brainwashed by western media. Western media is usually full of lies and likes to twist the truth to be more favorable for USA. Not only Russian sources claim my statements, but some western also (particulary French and German).
Experioence against untrained rookies does not boost USA's tankers crew capability. USA only encountered old tanks with obsolete ammo and unexperienced crew.
Abrams hasn't missile technology in tanks but "smart" ammo...
@brox114 Considering you probably grew up during Soviet times, I'd say that you are brainwashed. After all, lack of freedom of speech typically leads to brainwashing. The only people saying the T-90 is better than the Abrams are the Russians. Everyone always says their tank is the best. It's simple nationalism.
Doesn't change the fact that experience still trumps training. The Russians did similarly against the Georgians as the Americans against the Iraqis.
USA invented brainwashing, and only western media in conjunction with USA's goverment used it.
Try to say publicly in USA (or any NATO-member country) anything against it's goverment and politics and you will be jailed. So much about western "freedom of speech".
Fight against unexperienced crew is not so crutial. Gerogian troops are far better trained than Iraqi.
It's not a missile but a guided "smart" ammunition.
@brox114 Wow, then explain to me how I'm able to say Obama sucks ass (which I think he does) without getting jailed. Nazism and Communism are both legal in the U.S, despite those ideologies being the US's enemies. On the other hand, if I went into Soviet times and said the CCCP sucked, I'd get sent to a work camp. Believe me, my parents are Chinese. They know what Communists do to dissenters.
It's still better than simply training. Any experience, even against unarmed enemy tanks, is better
Finally, the "guided, precision" "smart bomb" already existed before the XM1111 project. The XM1111 is described as a missile by every official reports, and not just American, and it also functions like a missile. Granted, it's probably newer than the T-90's missile system, so the T-90 is probably where the Americans got the idea from.
@brox114 Did some more research, and I'll concur, it isn't a missile in the sense of the T-90. While the XM1111 is still called a missile, it isn't like the missile on the T-90 that's separate from the main gun. Nevertheless, the missile on the T-90 isn't strong enough to breach the armor of any current gen tank, making the whole missile point moot.
US export tanks to Israeli raped Soviet export tanks to the Arab countries. Both sides had downgraded versions, so it's not like the Gulf War
I have a plenty of info and knowledge about military technology, unlike you.
Invar-M and Sokol-1 can penetrate almost every modern MBT (in fact, Invar-M can penetrate M1A2 on all spots except frontal turret). They both still export downgraded models.
Freedom of speech in USA has it's limitations. Only USA's MARKETING likes to show it otherwise.
I already told you what types of ammo Abrams and T-90 can fire. Don't try to manipulate me.
@brox114 Buddy, stop pulling facts outta your ass. The missile system was developed for light targets and low flying vehicles such as helicopters. these missiles weren't designed for taking out other tanks and are unable to.
What limitations? I have shown you that I can walk up to the leader, in public, and call him a dumbass. People protest publically all the time. You wanna know what's really cracking down on free speech? Go look up Tiananmen Massacre.
The Abrams can fire more types of ammo from its main gun. Thus, it compensates for its lack of a true missile system. The XM1111 can hit the same types of targets as the T-90's missile system, and the Abrams can also fire other types of ammo that the T-90 cannot fire. The armor is comparable, and the armament are equal by overall standards (obviously, some things are better on one thing, and other things in the other). Overall, the 2 are equal. Abrams only wins by having more EXPERIENCED crews
"Buddy" use your brain a little bit and start thinking and answering wisely. Tank missile system in anti-aircraft role? On which PC game you saw that nonesnse. I already told you, computer games are fictionary and you shouldn't base your knowledge on them.
I would like to see that person called Obama dumbass publicly (on media) or in front of him... There's no cahnce that this particular person would passed without consequences.
@brox114 Dude, what I cite are the designers. So, unless the designers of the missile system are also game developers, you have once again proved you're full of shit.
I HAVE DONE THAT! Also, go search of Skokie, the Westboro Baptist Church, or even the Communist Party of the USA. they are all legal organizations and make it no secret that they hate America. The WBC was actually in a Supreme Court case. As was the Nazis at Skokie.
I'm Chinese. I know it isn't overblown. Its actually underplayed
I don't think weapon designers said that nonesnse, but some journalist lacking knowledge about military technology. Those organisations in USA can be legal, but they don't have any real influence on politics or public opinion. USA with their marketing likes to exaggurate and twist the truth - it's well known fact.
@brox114 That was indeed the purpose of the missiles. The main gun is sufficient for any tanks. Missiles are used for air targets. After all, missiles are used because helicopters are faster than the turret.
The United States has went through many changes over its existence, many of which were dramatically opposed to the current gov't of the time. Obama is losing political clout, despite him currently being President.
It's a well known fact that the USSR does those techniques, not the US.
@brox114 For the last time, I'M NOT USING A GAME AS A REFERENCE! I'm using the actual purpose the creators of the missile system said. Missiles are useful for anti-aircraft roles because they can lock on, unlike a normal tank round. The missile isn't powerful enough to penetrate any modern armor.
Yeah, the power is consolidated between Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President. It's called Balance of Power, and it's publicly known.
My family lived in China before, and they know everything the CCCP said is bullshit. I have experience. You have propaganda. And looking at the way you act, there is no other conclusion.
Ok; then please stop writing nonsense. Tank fired AA missiles currently DOES NOT exist.
The actual (executive) power of USA lies behing the most powerful decision makers (military industrial complexes and similar) who control Congress, Supreme Court and President.
@brox114 globalsecurity org/military/world/russia/t-90 htm (put dots where the spaces are)
"other vehicles and HELICOPTERS"
And yet, America is still less militarized than, say, North Korea, despite the country having very few powerful military industrial complexes. Believe me, I'm American. If those companies really controlled the US, there'd be far more wartime spending. We just recently cancelled the F22 program. Would the MIC support that? no.
Those companies control USA's economy. F-22 might be canceled, but new TR-3C (successor o TR-3B) is on full developenet scale. Black projects like this are brutally expansive. Miliraty budget that was intended for F-22's is only "moved" to another sphere of black projects or similar. Not even to say how many financial resources are spend on corruption (not only on USA's officials, but other - puppet states politicaians).
@brox114 Yeah, and they decided to cut funding to the Defense budget, why? It's not just the F22 that was dropped. Billions of dollars were cut from the Defense budget. Looks like these companies aren't so powerful, after all.
Enough with the conspiracy theories. Even if the companies wanted to divert funding from the F22 to the TR-3 program, they'd still get no profit because the TR-3 is not in service, nor is it sold to any other country. There is no profit to be made. Corruption does exist,
but seriously, start thinking about the reasons behind any of these theories. There is no profit to be made from diverting funds from an established product to an experimental one that's so far away from production that it's existence is still classified (assuming it exists at all). Companies are here to make a profit, not screw around with money for funzies, something a capitalist would understand, but someone like you would not.
Learn some basic economics before you start spouting nonsense.
Do you really think that USA's military budget was drastically cut? Think again. Media can present a lot of false data to distract people and to fool them. Poeple who control budget spending can be bribed to invent "creative accounting" solutions. M-I complex is extremely powerful, btw.
TR-3 is in service (in small numbers), but you won't find infos about it easily - because all black projects are highly classified and NOT exported; not even to biggest allies.
@brox114 The media is opposed to the "military industrial complex", to the point that I think it's ridiculous. Look, there's a LIMITED amount of money in this world, so whatever "ghost funds" won't stay secret for long. Why? Because that money has to come from somewhere. btw, if the M-I is so powerful, how can people publically criticize it and get away with it. There are protests every day. surely, the M-I must be more powerful than Nazi Germany and the USSR, right? Those guys managed to cut
all dissent against them. So, the M-I does exist, but it's no where near as powerful as you say. The money has to come from somewhere, so it will be easily noticed, and if they were so powerful, you should not be alive. All the facts point toward you being full of shit with your stupid conspiracy theories.
If they are classified, how do you know all this? And if they are operational, why not reveal them to the world? If the world knows about these wonder UFO weapons, then it'll be a very good
intimidation tool on the part of the US. These vehicles, from what I read, are not good enough to be ace-up-the-sleeve trump cards. We have nukes for those. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to not reveal these to the world. There's no need to worry about top secret info going to enemy hands because the British Chobham armor still has all of its details classified, and it's used by the M1 Abrams AND the Challenger 2. The F-22 has been revealed, and all of the details of that craft is still
classified. Thus, the only logical explanation is that the TR-3 does not exist, or it's in extremely early development stages. I'm assuming by your name and profile emblem that you are a nostalgic Soviet communist, and it's a proven fact that communists suck at economics. Money doesnt grow on trees. The MIC can't hide all of those funds for long. Any idiot will notice that. And it makes far more economic sense to reveal a fully developed future fighter because it can be used to gain diplomatic
advantages, allowing the gov't to get what it wants without even deploying them, saving time and money due to the fact that maintenance wouldnt be as bad. And if the MIC did have an unlimited budget, there should be more TR-3's, which there isn't (even you say it's in small numbers). Your conspiracy theories do not follow any basic economic sense, which any capitalist would know. Capitalists are there to make a profit, not blow up billions of dollars for shits and giggles.
Try to say that publicly (over the radio, TV or newspaper) and you will be jailed; in more serious accusations against USA's goverment, you'll be EXECUTED). Any ideology that counters USA's capitalism (imperialism) does not have any infulence in USA. If those people (socialsits, for example) try to change something, they will be jailed.
I have been in your country (USA) and have seen the real life over there which differs greatly from the one that is shown over western media.
@brox114 Have you ever heard of Fox News? They do nothing but criticize Obama and the current government on TV. People have walked up to Obama's face and said he was a dumbass. People protest in front of the White House. Socialists and Communists are able to express their opinion in the US. Nazis can even express an opinion (look up Sokie). Sure, most have the common sense to not listen to them, but they still have the freedom of speech.
sorry, it's "Skokie. The town was involved in a Supreme Court case that eventually ruled that Nazis had the freedom of speech, despite being the enemy of the US gov't just a few years prior. Now, the day I can walk into a Communist country, walk up the leader, call him a dumbass in public, and get away with it, that's the day I consider the Communist countries "free".
and I did some more research, and the Abrams can fire more types of ammunition than the T-90, making it more versatile.
Please, don't talk rubish. Chally 2, M1A2 SEP Abrams and T-90M and K2 have similar armor. Although T-90M has stronger turret and glacis than any of the mentioned, but it has also more weak spots. Tusk doesn't mean much, because it offers protection only against weaker AT missiles and weaker IED charge. RPG-29 will go straight through and achieve penetration. Leo2 is curently the best mbt in the world with much better protection than M1A2 SEP and is faster.
@brox114 The RPG-29 can go through the Challenger, which is famed for its armor. So saying the RPG-29 can penetrate the Abrams isn't saying much, because the 29 is one of the most modern anti-tank rounds. It can cut through a Leo as well. The Abrams is still faster. The Abrams also has far better armor than the T-90. The T-90 is just a supped up version of the T-72, which got an absolute beating during the Gulf War. The Abrams tank has taken multiple rounds from other Abrams and went unscratched
RPG-29 was developed in the mid 80's and introduced in late 80's/beginning of the 90's. It is capable to burn trough abrams like trough paper (except for frontal turret where are DU inserts). Leo has bigger power/weight ratio and much bigger torque, so it's faster than Abrams.
There are many abrams variants, and the newest in service M1A2 SEP offers pretty much the same protection like T-90M, NOT BETTER. T-90M has a little better turret and glacis protection.
@brox114 The RPG-29 can still penetrate through a Leo, too. That was my point. To say that the RPG 29 can penetrate the Abrams doesn't make the Leo better, because it can penetrate the Leo, too, The Abrams only has about twice as much ground pressure as a standing man, because of its design. The Abrams, I'll tell you again, has a JET ENGINE, whereas the Leo has a supped up V12 engine used in some CARS. The Abrams with the governor goes at over 40 mph, tying with the Leo despite being heavier.
RPG-29 can penetrate any modern mbt in the world at almost any spot except front turret. I didn't say that it couldn't burn trough Leo2. Abrams has GAS TURBINE engine which can accept few types of fuel.
GAS TUEBINE AND DIESEL are the only types of tank engines today. JET ENGINE CANNOT BE INSTALED IN TANK. Those are two very different designs. Leo2 has BOAT ENGINE, WHICH CANNOT FIT ANY EXISTING CAR IN THE WORLD. M1A2 SEP could not go over 70 km/h even with removed governor.
@brox114 Then bringing up the RPG-29 was completely pointless.
honeywell com/sites/aero/Turboprops3_CDF1BA7AE-8A37-9A78-EC1A-E00A4B74F3E9_H52422376-8368-1EC3-AA6D-83165D399CBF htm (put dots in the spaces). This engine is multi-fuel capable.
The Abrams is one of the heaviest tanks in the world, partially because it's powered up a jet engine. You can design a tank around any type of engine. The Leo's boat engine is still an advanced V12 engine, created during WORLD WAR ONE. It can go over 60mph.
Also, Iraqi's were using EXPORT Soviet T-72 models (heavily downgraded) and their own production T-72 (Lion of Babylon) which lacked far behind Soviet army models.
T-90 might look similar to T-72 with K5, but the difference between them is HUGE.
Average T-80U in Cechen wars took 8 RPG hits in their weakest spots before being put out of action.
Russian 3BM48 will punch trough frontal turret of M1A2 SEP, but USA's M829A3 will not penetrate frontal turret of T-90M.
@brox114 Yes, I know that. Still shows the capabilities of the Abrams, though. Even the normal version would've been whipped badly, although a battle would have some Abrams casualties. Not one Iraqi T-72 was able to knock out an Abrams.
Yeah, I know that. I actually think the T-90 is one of the most badass tanks in the world. Nevertheless, the Abrams still has better armor. It is heavier, after all. The weight comes from the strong armor.
penetrate the T-90. That's the great thing about the American 120mm smoothbore: it can take a variety of rounds. Now, since the T-90 is a modern day tank, I'll agree that the T-90 can be a good match with the Abrams in battle. Personally, if you ask me, if any modern day MBT (Abrams, Chally, Leo, T-90, Type 99, and Merkava) fought another different modern day MBT, there'd be a 50/50 chance of either one winning if each had the same caliber of crew. The reason I say Abrams is better is because
Not only USA but Russia also is developing new APFSDS rounds to defeat future threats like M1A3 Abrams. Currently, Russian 3BM48 has the best armor penetration in the world. T-90 has also smoothbore cannon which can accept HEAT, APFSDS, APERS and can fire guided missiles which Abrams cannot.
@brox114 The Abrams can accept all of those rounds as well. Now that I've done my research, I'll eat my words regarding how the Abrams has a better design. The Russians and the Americans have both developed new rounds to penetrate each others tanks. I'm guessing its a form of dick-measuring. Nevertheless, though tank design is equal, I'd think the Abrams would win based on crew experience. The Russians deployed T-90s in the small war with Georgia. The Abrams has been fighting for over a decade.
Abrams has a lot better marketing. In fact Abrams has outstanding marketing. That's all.
Rusian crews have very demanding and exhausting trainings to make them experts in any aspect of armored combat. Abrams can fire apfsds, heat, apers, but not missiles.
@brox114 Marketing won't help opinions after it's gone to battle. The M16 got great marketing and it was an absolute POS when it first came out, and people realized that (later models ironed out the problems, though). If the Abrams wasn't that good, people would stop singing high praises. Marketing doesn't sway the opinions of the tanker crews, and every tanker crew that pilots the Abrams say it's one of the best tanks out there.
Also, you of all people should know that no matter how much
training is done to a crew, it will never EVER replace experience. Experience is the best of all teachers. Sure, I'm quite sure that the Russian crews of the T-90 get really good training (having the second overall most powerful army in the world requires that sort of dedication), but nevertheless, training can't replace experience, and the Abrams crews have that going for them.
And the Abrams recently did develop missile technology. Look up the XM1111 and the MRM-CE.
Iraqi tanks were using OBSOLETE 1960's and 70's STEEL penetrators WITH HALF-CHARGE. Those rounds will have hard time to penetrate even old T-62. NONE OF MODERN SOVIET/RUSSIAN APFSDS rounds were used by Iraqi's. Abrams is heavier than T-90, but Soviet and Russians ALWAYS had better alloys than USA. Considering armor, I already told you, M1A2 SEP and T-90M are pretty much on the same level (T-90M has better turret and glacis protection than Abrams, but has also more weaker spots).
@brox114 I doubt that the Soviets had better alloys. NATO comprised of some of the richest countries on Earth, the U.S being currently THE richest country and spends THE HIGHEST amount of money on Defense. I have done some more research on the T-90, and now I'll agree that the T-90's armor is comparable to the Abrams, thus making it comparable to the Chally and Leo as well. The T-90 is a damn good tank, I'll admit. There's only a few hundred in service, so I'm guessing quality trumped quantity.
Soviets and now Russians had and still have better alloys. Aslo Russia has more than 4 times bigger "bang for buck" than USA. In Soviet times the difference was even greater.
You mentioned TUSK, so I mentoined weapon which counters thet wih ease (RPG-29).
AGT-1500 is GAS TURBINE engine (AGT stands for Abrams Gas Turbine), which could accept few types of fuel (multi-fuel capability). This is NOT jet engine. Jet engine has quite diferent design and characteristics than tank engine
@brox114 If that was the case, why does Soviet doctrine rely on a wave of cheap, disposable tanks in pretty much every war it's been involved in. Soviet tanks were made for quantity over quality. The T-90 was created after the Gulf War proved such a plan ill-advised. The U.S always had better resources. They won the spending war, after all.
The RPG-29 can defeat any modern tank. It's a modern anti-tank gun.
It is still more reliable and accept more types than a V12 engine, which is diesel only
why only a gas engine? why not Diesel? :(
USSWISCONSIN64 6 days ago
Best documentary I've seen yet
ThatTankid 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Abrams is good, but Challenger 2 is better ! & im in the u.s military ..
luvpump1 2 weeks ago
is it arrow proof?
vivasmallmexico 2 weeks ago
M1A1 - Desert Warrior
Leopard 2A2 - Woodland Warrior
T-90m - Snow Warrior
Challenger 2 - Warrior over all (:
Mattc23q 3 weeks ago
@Mattc23q lol fail
Blueatchley12 1 week ago
@Blueatchley12 The M1 Is a great tank, would destroy any russian or asian vehicle, pretty much equal to the challenger, but I like the challenger a bit more because the engine has that rumble
Mattc23q 1 week ago
@Mattc23q lol i know what u mean i love hearing that noise the only sound i like from the abrams in when it starts up and fires its gun makes a BOOM!! and not the leos PAT!!
Blueatchley12 1 week ago
@Mattc23q dude where do you get your info? the gulf war? lmfao... We faced T-62s and Asad Babil (MBT) which is an inferior copy of the heavily downgraded export version of T-72M that had stupidly thin rolled steel armor, no thermal sights, no ERA, no laser ranging and more. They had No T-72A or T-72B that had full composite armor and ERA. In 1996 tests of M-829A1 failed to penetrate T-72B with ERA. Not to mention we were fighting a 3rd world country. we are giving ourselves a lil too much cred.
averbakh01 1 week ago
@Mattc23q Tell that to RPG-29 that smoked the Challengers frontal armor.
averbakh01 1 week ago
For you who hate USA, Russian army during the Georgian war attacked civilian targets not military targets.
StarTrekFanEst 1 month ago
@StarTrekFanEst you stupid and naive people.
I am well in America, but you say stupid things.
Russia defended civilians from enemy troops.
MrAipot 1 month ago
@MrAipot No man Georgia isn't in Russia, and Russia attacked Georgian civil targets, it was all in the papers, and what troubles me the most, at the start of the Olympics, peace was declared during the olympics, but Russia still attacked.
StarTrekFanEst 1 month ago
@StarTrekFanEst useless to argue. Georgians have won the information war.
I beg you to give me your email.
I wanted to give you some pictures.
please.
I just want to be a true triumph.
MrAipot 4 weeks ago
@StarTrekFanEst my fucking translator.
I would say that was true. (Oh, I hope you understand)
MrAipot 4 weeks ago
@StarTrekFanEst I wanted to say that I have good relations with America.
I would like that to the U.S. and Russia was an ally.
All my friends think so!
you know?
MrAipot 1 month ago
@MrAipot I know they are allies and so are china and USA, Iran and North Korea are the real threats, just said so people would open their eyes and stop hating USA, Russia also does bad things, Americans shot at Iraqi civilians too, beacuse they were afraid of insurgency.
StarTrekFanEst 1 month ago
wait it used a BRITISH and a GERMAN gun!?
and they still DARE insult the Europenas!
alekzander2010 1 month ago
and the german army has 2125 leopards
im a driver of these tank
hehe
TheSeneca16 1 month ago
how would the Abram stand up to AK-47??
Sassymui8 1 month ago
@Sassymui8 an ak wouldn't do shit.. it would be like punching a wall
webbyman 1 month ago
Greetings from Greece.I just wanted to see what we are going to buy because we want only the best for our army.German tanks that we allready have are also good,but for some reason Germans are going mad if we want to spend so much money.Fortunately our friends Americans seems that they will give us those tanks.Thank to Europeans we have money.Nikolas,Greece
NPAPALOUCA61 1 month ago
@NPAPALOUCA61 If i was a decision maker in greece I wouldn't take these tanks even if got them for free.
TheTokkin 1 month ago
@NPAPALOUCA61 you are troll master! LMAO
NewMan4096 1 month ago
@Bartholomeusismyname yeah that's interesting. I think M60 might be a vehicle the Iraqis could better appreciate.
TheTokkin 1 month ago
Abrams FTW!
Fl3mOn80r 1 month ago
This needs dreamcar technology.
dreamcar456 1 month ago
I love this tank!!
anthonyae 2 months ago
The Brits and their Challengers sit in fury...
BMW9871 2 months ago
I honestly don't think it's ugly, it's an awesome looking machine
Jars1996 2 months ago
This is the best tank in the world by far. Gtfo Brits get mad more.
PeytonManningguy 2 months ago
@PeytonManningguy british armour german gun
BangalorVanguard 2 months ago
@BangalorVanguard that comment sounds british, Umadbro?
asianiinvasion 2 months ago
@PeytonManningguy Don't be silly, according to rounds tested against the M1A1 and the M1A1 SEP. The overall thickness of the armour including DP armour is still less than Challenger 2.
More range and accuracy with th Challenger 2 due to the rifled barrel. Cheaper in cost, similar in combat control tech as the Abrams.
One advantage the Abrams has is it's speed, but that really doesn't count for anything unless you're running!
Now, unless you have fought in any tank do not even talk, boy.
Sonnypjim09 1 month ago
@PeytonManningguy US M1 Abrams tank = British/German gun and British armour. The only thing the US really contributed by the looks of it was the engine, which from what I hear is a pain in the ass because they used some retarded turbine system which gets messed up by sand. So erm, there's really nothing for us Brits to be mad about. Were glad you liked our technology!
naraithsil 1 month ago
Fun fact. How many Abrams have been produced since it started production? OVER 9,000!!!!!!!!!
ushockey08 2 months ago 13
@ushockey08 Yeah, but you know what's a more important figure than sheer production numbers? export performance. No one outside the US uses Abrams unless they're contractually required to buy them, like Saudis and Egyptians. The only country to have voluntarily bought m1 is Australia, and even the US had to sweeten the deal. Its the same story with all shit manufactured by the corrupt US military industry. Stryker, Bradley, Abrams; they're shit that no one outside the US touches not even israel.
TheTokkin 1 month ago
@TheTokkin I would be inclined to believe you, except Israel uses American made equipment almost exclusively. Not just tanks but F-15s, M-16s etc. I can't even count the number of nations that fly the F-16. Are you suggesting that they are all contractually obligated? More countries choose to buy American made weapons over any other. Which is why the US is the largest arms exporter. I think you might be confused with russian technology. Nobody wants that garbage.
ushockey08 1 month ago
@ushockey08 US weapons trade to countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia (the two main users of abrams besides US) goes like this: the US gives them massive amount of military aid (money), in exchange for a contractual obligation to buy goods from US manufacturers. Israel is, oftentimes, required to do the same (although, they dont touch the worst crap, like Bradley, Stryker and Abrams). Many middle income countries would much rather buy the affordable and time-tested Russian tech.
TheTokkin 1 month ago
@TheTokkin Im actually on a program in Iraq right now that sold Iraq 140 M1s. Im getting sick and tired of droping the elevation servo and mount to tighten the bolts that are hand loose on the motor. This is like almost half the tanks and I know the Iraqis are like.....uhhhh, WTF???
Bartholomeusismyname 1 month ago
@ushockey08 Vehicles like Bradley, Abrams, Stryker are designed by US def contractors to rob the tax payer blind: they're full of expensive and unreliable tech, which is profitable for the contractors because they have a monopoly on many spare parts and in the case of stryker, on maintenance entirely. The reason why pentagon accepts this is because the brass is corrupt they get a share of the loot once they retire and go to work in these very same defense companies, where they get huge salaries.
TheTokkin 1 month ago
@TheTokkin you ever been inside of, operated or had your life depend on the operation of one of those vehicles? I can tell you from personal experience that what you stated above is complete and utter bullshit.
setojurai 1 month ago
@TheTokkin I m a contractor who works on abrams tanks and that does make sense. I never looked at it like that
Bartholomeusismyname 1 month ago
@ushockey08 also, a great deal of those m1s are just lying around in open air storage, doing nothing, because they're complicated, unreliable systems are too expensive to fix.
TheTokkin 1 month ago
@ushockey08 yes 9000
8000 has the USMC and the US Army Ranger but the german leoaprd 2 is the best tank in the world
TheSeneca16 1 month ago
@TheSeneca16 Show me proof, because I bet you don't even know why
Slash396 1 month ago
@Slash396 the leopard has the new L/55 kanon
the abrams has the M256 or L/44
the L/55 has more penetrating power
and the leopard drives mor kmh than the abrams
The armor is better and he does not consume as much fuel
TheSeneca16 1 month ago
@TheSeneca16 The Abams has the same speed, better armor, better accuracy, the cannons are pretty much similar, and how many Leos have been made? Oh yeah, less than 1,000. How many Abrams have been made? Oh! About 10,000. And they are making an M1A3
Slash396 1 month ago
@Slash396 the abrams drives 72 kmh
the leopard 2 drives 84 and the armor is is twice as good
The guns are not like they use different ammunition the L/55 used armor-piercing thermite like the Panzerfaust 3 we germans build always
We are build always good military Gear for example the m4 has often jammed so the Army has tested the German Hk 416 This is significantly better
TheSeneca16 1 month ago
@ushockey08 Its 9.000!!!!!!
Germanyisthebest1 1 month ago
Egypt now produces Abram tanks...
SudanDawah 2 months ago
The U.S. has top notch tank crews, even during the 90s
Warpath2198 3 months ago
this tanks very powerful but only a bazooka or an aircraft kill suddenly this tank :D
crosfire1903 3 months ago
@crosfire1903 So WRONG. Where have you been latley? Bazookas are old as fuck and only special air strikes might be able to get the kill.
Abrams has never been destroyed in battle. That is a FACT.
MeInvalidMan 2 months ago
Everybody is saying it's ugly. So is the M-107 Sniper rifle. So is the Mi-24 Hind and the AH-64D Apache Longbow. But the ugliest weapons are the only strongest. Just like the 'nerds' OR 'smart' people in life and school get the farthest in Life.
xCWalkBoyx 3 months ago
yeah its ugly what comes out is what matters
coolwhip197 3 months ago
Strong tank, but ugly as hell.
03nj 3 months ago
I think the Abrams is only a slightly proven design. When you look at its combat history it has always had air support and was fighting second rate tanks, and tank crews. The tanks is no doubt a top contender but I really wonder how it would stand up to determined opponent in combat.
BigMrSox 3 months ago
@BigMrSox A fight, 1-1 M1A3 vs Challenger 2, Challenger would win. But it's cost is much higher per tank, m1a1 is very dependable and low costly compaired to it's combat capability.
ryushahkola 3 months ago
@ryushahkola: What? There is no M1A3 yet, and it depends on the Crew, not on the Tank.
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
1:18 nice erection
marmoot 4 months ago
Will it blend?
WilliamTaylor15 4 months ago
What's with the porn soundtrack
musicman216 4 months ago 3
I am thinking about joining the army and apply for an m1 tank crew member, what will need to know or what am I gonna be trained in?
Thomahawk5000 4 months ago
@Thomahawk5000 Best combat arms job in the Force
TheSabotFighter 4 months ago
t-90 is best in real life in battle but have pre-charched three ammo so he shoot first
and t-95 pffff no comment suprise !
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
What did he say that Abrams lack compared to Leo? English isn't my mother language so I didn't quite catch it...
FromFinlandDude 4 months ago
a good tank, and most importantly that Ney has a negro who charges the shells. LOL
redneck10ivan 4 months ago
1:18 lol tank hard on
tonyracer24 5 months ago
i want one!!!!!!!!!!!!!
madsqurriel 5 months ago
pure epicness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
madsqurriel 5 months ago
Bronx there is freedom of speech in the usa I have protested before on the street you are a typical anti american brainwashed troll who is bashing on the usa out of some biased foreign stereotype if you don't like the usa then don't use you tube an american website.
TheDuit13 5 months ago
Abrams and leopard are equal the t90 is a good tank, but anything other than western and Russian tanks is rubbish.
TheDuit13 5 months ago
AHHH damnit brox114 is on this video he always ruins American military videos with his BS statistics and trolling.
ak907jk 5 months ago
That"s worth more than the white house.
eagleskid20 5 months ago
Pause at 00:00 Open new page go to Youtube and open flo ride - low .... Badass shit!
ChristofferTheOne 5 months ago
''the first realy new battle tank'' that makes alot off sense
MrPlaystationboy 6 months ago
The gun is 30% stronger than the Abrams. The motor can be changed in 15minutes, has the same power as the turbine of the Abrams, but consumes 40% less fuel is not as vulnerable, and has a significantly lower thermal signature. The Abrams had until now only to do with ridiculous armor, because you would like to stand up garbage cans. Well, but battle-hardened super. Against real opponents, the weaknesses would show directly. The Abrams is for our Leo II cannon fodder!
Germany ♥
tobius96 6 months ago
@tobius96 The Leopard uses the same Rheinmetall L55 120mm smoothbore than the Abrams...
Wafflepudding 6 months ago
@Wafflepudding
But with the other components of the leopard, he is clearly superior to the abrams!
tobius96 6 months ago
/watch?v=kiVRO1bhdj0
<--1 shot, gg m1a1 -.-
maltej1982 6 months ago
i wonder if anyone has $10mil and actually buy this tank.. that would be nice(I think). can locals buy tanks?
steamburn123 6 months ago
... A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ABRAMS "CLASSIFIED" ARMOR:
M1A2: Turret (max.) 880-900 mm vs KE, 1310-1620 vs HEAT,
Glacis (max.) 560-590 mm vs KE, 510-1050 vs HEAT
Lower front hull (max.) 580-650 vs KE, 800-900 vs HEAT
Armor ("classified") is spaced and consisted of 4 layers of high hardness steel (from HRC 40 to HRC 48), 1 layer of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), 1 layer of silicon carbide (SiC), depleted uranium inserts in frontal turret, hard plastic inserts and kevlar spalling layer.
brox114 6 months ago
@brox114 um, its 6 layers thick dude, as for whats inside your also wrong. the amunition needed to ever get through is in a tank fight would be heavily depleted uranium rounds. and yeah there is such a thing, try googling it. the rounds are ungodly hard and punch through nearly anything. using high explosive anti tanks rounds like you suggest wouldnt do shit to its armor. the reason you say they got 4 layers is cause you watched future tech, lol sad. I got a cousin that works in GM&CDproduction
HOORAA 6 months ago
@HOORAA Um, "depleted" doesn't mean "hard", it means more U238 and less U235 isotope. You could make 100% "depleted" U238 rounds and they would be just as hard as the regular ones, they'd only be a few grams heavier if anything.
HEAT ammo could wreck an Abrams in a shot or two if it was something like the Javelin. But I don't know of any other top-attack HEAT munitions that heavy.
Wafflepudding 6 months ago
@Wafflepudding no offensie dude but serious, you know nothing about this stuff, you should serious just be remain silent. cause the further depleted a round gets the harder it is. and no a HEAT round wouldnt do shit to a abrams. they test fire rounds on the armor to see what it does. please just shut up and crawl into your little fail troll hole and die.
HOORAA 5 months ago
@HOORAA ...ROFL XD You're just embarassing yourself now
Wafflepudding 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Wafflepudding en wikipedia org/wiki/High_explosive_anti-tank_warhead HEAT works against SOLID armor dumbass. abrams armor is not solid, your just showing how stupied you are.
on DU: enwikipedia org/wiki/Depleted_uranium , also if you need further proofing of how stupied you are, just search how DU works on the web.
you all claim you know all this shit and in truth you dont know jack shit.so shut the fuck up for your own good
for links, put . where spaces are
HOORAA 3 months ago
@HOORAA
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Except DU, it can be used W2C or any other dense alloy. I'm have considerable knowledge about military technology and warfare.
Powerful AT weapon will burn trough armor with no problem. Quite a few Abrams tanks were penetrated and destroyed by AT weapons; almost the same number as from IED's.
I didn't watch some "future tech", but I have expert analysis of Abrams armor and capabilities.
Your cousin will not tell you anything crucial because of confidentiality.
brox114 6 months ago
@brox114 wrong and seriously doubtful. they use to use the abrams to detonate the IED`s in iraq and afganastan, the ones that EOD couldnt get to in time or wouldnt touch. only the biggest IED`s were just set off at range. they even got something on netflix about it I think. Id have to look through it again
and youd besurprised at what the people can say about the weapons they make. they just cant tell you what its made of
HOORAA 5 months ago
@HOORAA
Abrams vs RPG and IED: type on Live leak "Abrams tanks" and enjoy.
Abrams is far from being best mbt in the world. In reality M1A2 SEP it's no match for Leo 2A6 or A7.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 If I did the exact same thing to the Leo A7, I'd get the same result. The reason the Abrams has more destroyed is because there are more Abrams deployed. The enemy is more likely to see an Abrams and thus more likely to get lucky and defeat it. If we were to switch the numbers of Abrams and Leos around, the number of casualties would also flip.
The Abrams has the best combination of good design, good crew, and large numbers to be #1 in the world.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
That's wrong. Abrams (M1A2 SEP) is not even close to be the best mbt in the world. Only american media likes to exaggerate. Abrams could not even in a dream match Leo 2A6 considering armor, maneuvarability, accurace, firepower and design solutions. Not even to mention 2A7. Roughly the closest M1A2 SEP counterparts are Russian T-90M and Korean K2 Black Panthers. Merkava Mk4, Leo 2A6 and A7 are much better.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Bullshit. The Leopard and the Abrams are pretty much the exact same. The Abrams has better armor (almost as good as the famed armor on the Challenger), is faster than the Leopard with the engine govenor removed, more manuverable and performs better due to having a jet engine to power it, has the exact same gun and thus the exact same firepower, and has far more experienced crews to drive them as the Leopard has seen very little combat compared to the Abrams. Abrams is still #1.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
Plus, there are 6000 Abrams in service, the largest number out of any of the tanks you listed except possibly for the Russian T-90. Therefore, I rest by my previous statement. The Abrams is the best combination of mobility, firepower, armor, crew experience, and numbers in service of any other MBT in the world. The only real disadvantage the Abrams has is fuel efficiency, and since the U.S are the best in the world at logistics, we're able to provide fuel very easily. Abrams is #1.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
From where did you got all this nonsenses? From some BS computer games? Abrams is waaaay overpriced and raised to the heaven. USA's media like to exaggerate very much. Abrams is slower than Leo2A6, has weaker armor, is less maneuvarable, less accurate, has weaker firepower (L44 vs L55) and has a GAS TURBINE engine which is inferior to Diesel engine. Also USA's tank crew are pretty much on the same level with German and Russian. Not better. Learn before you post.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Why don't you do some research first. The Abrams is more manuverable than the Leo. With the engine governor removed, the Abrams is the fastest tank in the world. It has better armor than the Leo, and the exact same gun (both 120 mm smoothbore), which therefore gives it the exact same accuracy and firepower. It runs on a MULTI-FUEL JET ENGINE, and actually has a governor on the engine to keep it from going so fast for so long that the TREADS TEAR OFF. In battle, the troops usually take
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
off the governor when in battle. And ask yourself, how many Leopards are currently deployed in war zones right now? There are thousands of Abrams tanks that see battle. I think we can say that even if everything else I said was wrong, I'm still right when it comes to the fact that the Abrams tank has seen far more combat and thus has far more experienced crew members.
The Abrams is faster, has a better engine, better armor, same gun, and more experienced crews. Abrams is overall better.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
... also, Leo 2 has better armor protection than Abrams. M1A2 SEP couldn't go faster than 70 km/h even with governor removed; because it's too fu*king heavy. Initial 1979 M1 Abrams maybe could hit beyond 80 km/h; but not above 90 km/h like it's reported on some web sites. Abrams has an GAS TURBINE engine, which could accept few types of fuel, but Diesel engine is better. Abrams is no match for Leo2A6. Please, don't waste my time with your childish comments.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 The Abrams can hit over 60 mph with the governor removed (since I'm a yank, I don't know how to convert it to km). It doesn't use a gas turbine. The engine in the Abrams can handle jet fuel, gasoline and diesel, among others. It has better performance and is still just as fast or even faster than the Leopard, even with its heavy weight. There's a reason it drinks fuel. It has very good performance and can use a variety of fuel, but it burns a lot of energy
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Abramy engine Honeywell AGT 1500 is an GAS TURBINE. Tanks have two types of engine: Diesels and Gas turbines.
100km/h top speed for Abrams? Are you off your mind? Initial M1 Abrams cannot even reach 90 km/h with governor removed. M1A2 SEP cannot reach 80 km/h with governor removed. M1A2 SEP Abrams needs more than 7 seconds 0-32km/h. Leo 2A6 needs less than 6 seconds. Abrams engine radiate ~3x more heat than Leo's and ~5x more than T-90M.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 No, it is not. The Abrams tank is powered by a jet engine, not an actual tank engine. It's a multi-fuel engine capable of using a variety of fuel.
That really shows your ignorance. the Abrams can match the speed of the Leo with the governor, which is used to keep the tank far away from its maximum speed. Without the governor, the Abrams tank can indeed reach 60 mph. The Leopard is powered by a modernized V12 engine, used by WW1 airplanes and now cars. The abrams has a jet engine.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Abrams has seen more battle, but it doesn't mean that it's crew is superior to other nations well trained crew.
Considering armor M1A2 SEP closest equvivalent is Russian T-90M and Korean K2, but T-90M has superior maneuvarability and firepower. Electronics are pretty much on the same level. But Leo2A6 and especially 2A7 is today's best MBT considering armor protection, maneuvarability, accuracy and firepower.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 The armor on the M1A2 SEP is also close to that of the British Chobham armor (famous for being incredibly durable), and out classes the T-90 and the K2. The armor has taken multiple tank blasts with little to no effect. Thanks to the TUSK protection, there are videos of Abrams running over IEDs with little to no effect. The Abrams is better armored than than the Leo, is faster, although I'll admit the Leo's gun is a little better (44 vs 55, though the Abrams has more ammo variety).
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
In conclusion, don't knock on the Abrams. Training alone isn't going to prepare you for everything. No plan survives contact with the enemy. Experience smooths the edges and gives the crew a better understanding of combat and the enemy. So, while the Germans have good training, the Yanks have good training+experience. The Abrams has better armor, a better engine so it is a bit more manuverable and faster, and, while having a shorter gun, has more ammo variety. The Leo isn't better.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
Next time, do some actual research and look up the opinions of people who actually built and drove those tanks. Go look at combat history. Don't just look up specifications. Just reading books and watching movies doesn't make you a war expert. It makes you a hobbyist with knowledge of the subject, but it doesn't make you an expert that the militaries of the world will consult for advice. The Abrams has been around for years and it still has the best combat record, and that's what counts.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
What level of military knowledge do you actually have, because in every of your comments you are showed lack of knowledge on military technology. Have ever you been in the army like I was? Is your father maybe active LTC so you can discuss with him about warfare and military technology; like my?
Abrams (M1A2 SEP) is no match in any characteristic to Leo2A6, not even to mention A7.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 I highly doubt that. You have not mentioned it in any of your previous posts, and your childish insults to the Abrams really makes me think that the closest you've ever been to the military was on the internet. I highly doubt your father was anywhere close to the military either. Any military expert would agree with me that the Abrams tank is one of the most successful and dangerous tanks of all time. Not to mention they would all put more money on crew experience (the Abrams has more)
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
I mentioned it somewhere, maybe not on this video. Seems to me that your "knowlegde" is based on some computer games - even your own channel is full of some fictous "Godzilla" PC games. I don't play games; I'm realistic and my knowledge is based on books, articles and discussions. My father is active officer with rank of "Pukovnik" (american equvivalent of LTC); and I served in the army as an sniper. Abrams is good tank, but nowhere near to be the best.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Anyone can say anything on the internet. My knowledge is mostly based on books, articles, and discussions online. Now I'll admit I don't have any personal experience with the Abrams, but I highly doubt you have any, either. Even if you serve, you are a sniper, not a tanker. All of your knowledge stems from the same resources I have (books, articles, the internet etc). Whatever the case may be, your knowledge of the Abrams is so inaccurate I really have nothing but doubt about your story
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
And yes, I'm a video gamer. I don't base my knowledge on video games, otherwise, you'd hear me saying something like "OMG, teh Deagle is teh most 1337 gun EVAH! every military shud be using it!1!1!!!" I don't. I admit there are problems on the Abrams, and I think that the Leo and Abrams are tied in effectiveness in combat. However, your ignorant statements about the Abrams makes me think you read only biased sources that amount to nothing but american-bashing. That, I can't trust.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Being sniper in the army doesn't mean that I don't know anything about armor. Everything I said is based on experts analysis and estimations.
Sorry, but you showed very little knowlegde about military technology. With your opinion of Abrams being the best of the best with absulotely no concurency, you only made a fool out of yourself.
Abrams only has (like all american stuff) outstanging marketing.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Considering your complete ignorance on the Abrams, I doubt you had expert analysis on that particular tank.
You are only making a fool of yourself. You constantly tell blatant lies about the capabilities of the Leo and the Abrams, which only makes everyone less likely to believe you have any military experience. You got the armor wrong, the engine wrong, and the gun wrong. I doubt you've seen any experts, or you would've been more knowledgeable. Clearly, you are not.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Btw, I posess considerable knowledge about tanks (that includes abrams); unlike YOU WHO SAID THAT ABRAMS USES A JET!!! ENGINE... In which game did you hear/read that? With your comments you showed absolute ingorance about military technology. The thing is that you even fiercely defend your ignorance without being even aware of it. You are free to check my statemnets about tanks to see them.
...and please, kid don't waste my time with your "knowlegde" about tanks from PC games...
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 I didn't read it from any video game. Every game out there only has M1 Abrams, and left it at that. I just posted the website that is the official company website for the product in one of my previous posts. As you can see, clearly, you are the ignorant one. I have checked every single website and have failed to find anything that backs up your claims, although since I think you're Russian, it's probably some Russian website I can't read. All western sources don't back up your claims.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
My friend, you are heavily brainwashed by western media. Western media is usually full of lies and likes to twist the truth to be more favorable for USA. Not only Russian sources claim my statements, but some western also (particulary French and German).
Experioence against untrained rookies does not boost USA's tankers crew capability. USA only encountered old tanks with obsolete ammo and unexperienced crew.
Abrams hasn't missile technology in tanks but "smart" ammo...
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Considering you probably grew up during Soviet times, I'd say that you are brainwashed. After all, lack of freedom of speech typically leads to brainwashing. The only people saying the T-90 is better than the Abrams are the Russians. Everyone always says their tank is the best. It's simple nationalism.
Doesn't change the fact that experience still trumps training. The Russians did similarly against the Georgians as the Americans against the Iraqis.
No, it is a legit missile.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
USA invented brainwashing, and only western media in conjunction with USA's goverment used it.
Try to say publicly in USA (or any NATO-member country) anything against it's goverment and politics and you will be jailed. So much about western "freedom of speech".
Fight against unexperienced crew is not so crutial. Gerogian troops are far better trained than Iraqi.
It's not a missile but a guided "smart" ammunition.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Wow, then explain to me how I'm able to say Obama sucks ass (which I think he does) without getting jailed. Nazism and Communism are both legal in the U.S, despite those ideologies being the US's enemies. On the other hand, if I went into Soviet times and said the CCCP sucked, I'd get sent to a work camp. Believe me, my parents are Chinese. They know what Communists do to dissenters.
It's still better than simply training. Any experience, even against unarmed enemy tanks, is better
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
Finally, the "guided, precision" "smart bomb" already existed before the XM1111 project. The XM1111 is described as a missile by every official reports, and not just American, and it also functions like a missile. Granted, it's probably newer than the T-90's missile system, so the T-90 is probably where the Americans got the idea from.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
XM1111 IS NOT A MISSILE. describing it as an missile is totally wrong. XM1111 is a smart ammunition.
For example, KAB-1500 or GBU-27 are "smart" bombs, and they cannot be describes as air-to-ground missiles.
T-90 fires missiles, not some "smart" ammunition.
Every CCCP's tank in their times were SUPERIOR to USA's. T-55 was superior to M-47 and M-48.
T-64 and T-72 were superior to M-60 Patton's. T-80BV and U were superior to early Abrams models (M1 and M1A1)
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Did some more research, and I'll concur, it isn't a missile in the sense of the T-90. While the XM1111 is still called a missile, it isn't like the missile on the T-90 that's separate from the main gun. Nevertheless, the missile on the T-90 isn't strong enough to breach the armor of any current gen tank, making the whole missile point moot.
US export tanks to Israeli raped Soviet export tanks to the Arab countries. Both sides had downgraded versions, so it's not like the Gulf War
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
I have a plenty of info and knowledge about military technology, unlike you.
Invar-M and Sokol-1 can penetrate almost every modern MBT (in fact, Invar-M can penetrate M1A2 on all spots except frontal turret). They both still export downgraded models.
Freedom of speech in USA has it's limitations. Only USA's MARKETING likes to show it otherwise.
I already told you what types of ammo Abrams and T-90 can fire. Don't try to manipulate me.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Buddy, stop pulling facts outta your ass. The missile system was developed for light targets and low flying vehicles such as helicopters. these missiles weren't designed for taking out other tanks and are unable to.
What limitations? I have shown you that I can walk up to the leader, in public, and call him a dumbass. People protest publically all the time. You wanna know what's really cracking down on free speech? Go look up Tiananmen Massacre.
You're trying to change reality.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
The Abrams can fire more types of ammo from its main gun. Thus, it compensates for its lack of a true missile system. The XM1111 can hit the same types of targets as the T-90's missile system, and the Abrams can also fire other types of ammo that the T-90 cannot fire. The armor is comparable, and the armament are equal by overall standards (obviously, some things are better on one thing, and other things in the other). Overall, the 2 are equal. Abrams only wins by having more EXPERIENCED crews
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
"Buddy" use your brain a little bit and start thinking and answering wisely. Tank missile system in anti-aircraft role? On which PC game you saw that nonesnse. I already told you, computer games are fictionary and you shouldn't base your knowledge on them.
I would like to see that person called Obama dumbass publicly (on media) or in front of him... There's no cahnce that this particular person would passed without consequences.
Tiamanmen Masacre is "overblown" by western media
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Dude, what I cite are the designers. So, unless the designers of the missile system are also game developers, you have once again proved you're full of shit.
I HAVE DONE THAT! Also, go search of Skokie, the Westboro Baptist Church, or even the Communist Party of the USA. they are all legal organizations and make it no secret that they hate America. The WBC was actually in a Supreme Court case. As was the Nazis at Skokie.
I'm Chinese. I know it isn't overblown. Its actually underplayed
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
I don't think weapon designers said that nonesnse, but some journalist lacking knowledge about military technology. Those organisations in USA can be legal, but they don't have any real influence on politics or public opinion. USA with their marketing likes to exaggurate and twist the truth - it's well known fact.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 That was indeed the purpose of the missiles. The main gun is sufficient for any tanks. Missiles are used for air targets. After all, missiles are used because helicopters are faster than the turret.
The United States has went through many changes over its existence, many of which were dramatically opposed to the current gov't of the time. Obama is losing political clout, despite him currently being President.
It's a well known fact that the USSR does those techniques, not the US.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Tank missiles are NOT used in anti-aircreft role. You really have absolutely no idea what are you talking about. Reality is NOT computer games.
Obama is someone else's puppet. Do you really think that Obama has executive power and that he can do everything?! Think again!
CCCP didn't twist the truth and didn't serve lies to general public; but western media and USA did. Only dumb naive people cannot realize that.
...and don't waste my time by dumb comments.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 For the last time, I'M NOT USING A GAME AS A REFERENCE! I'm using the actual purpose the creators of the missile system said. Missiles are useful for anti-aircraft roles because they can lock on, unlike a normal tank round. The missile isn't powerful enough to penetrate any modern armor.
Yeah, the power is consolidated between Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President. It's called Balance of Power, and it's publicly known.
You're more brainwashed than I thought.
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
My family lived in China before, and they know everything the CCCP said is bullshit. I have experience. You have propaganda. And looking at the way you act, there is no other conclusion.
Unless, of course, you are a troll.
Dumb comments, how ironic...
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Ok; then please stop writing nonsense. Tank fired AA missiles currently DOES NOT exist.
The actual (executive) power of USA lies behing the most powerful decision makers (military industrial complexes and similar) who control Congress, Supreme Court and President.
Use your brain a little bit.
brox114 4 months ago
@brox114 globalsecurity org/military/world/russia/t-90 htm (put dots where the spaces are)
"other vehicles and HELICOPTERS"
And yet, America is still less militarized than, say, North Korea, despite the country having very few powerful military industrial complexes. Believe me, I'm American. If those companies really controlled the US, there'd be far more wartime spending. We just recently cancelled the F22 program. Would the MIC support that? no.
You need to use your brain, buddy.
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Those companies control USA's economy. F-22 might be canceled, but new TR-3C (successor o TR-3B) is on full developenet scale. Black projects like this are brutally expansive. Miliraty budget that was intended for F-22's is only "moved" to another sphere of black projects or similar. Not even to say how many financial resources are spend on corruption (not only on USA's officials, but other - puppet states politicaians).
brox114 4 months ago
@brox114 Yeah, and they decided to cut funding to the Defense budget, why? It's not just the F22 that was dropped. Billions of dollars were cut from the Defense budget. Looks like these companies aren't so powerful, after all.
Enough with the conspiracy theories. Even if the companies wanted to divert funding from the F22 to the TR-3 program, they'd still get no profit because the TR-3 is not in service, nor is it sold to any other country. There is no profit to be made. Corruption does exist,
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
but seriously, start thinking about the reasons behind any of these theories. There is no profit to be made from diverting funds from an established product to an experimental one that's so far away from production that it's existence is still classified (assuming it exists at all). Companies are here to make a profit, not screw around with money for funzies, something a capitalist would understand, but someone like you would not.
Learn some basic economics before you start spouting nonsense.
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Do you really think that USA's military budget was drastically cut? Think again. Media can present a lot of false data to distract people and to fool them. Poeple who control budget spending can be bribed to invent "creative accounting" solutions. M-I complex is extremely powerful, btw.
TR-3 is in service (in small numbers), but you won't find infos about it easily - because all black projects are highly classified and NOT exported; not even to biggest allies.
brox114 4 months ago
Comment removed
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
Comment removed
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brox114 The media is opposed to the "military industrial complex", to the point that I think it's ridiculous. Look, there's a LIMITED amount of money in this world, so whatever "ghost funds" won't stay secret for long. Why? Because that money has to come from somewhere. btw, if the M-I is so powerful, how can people publically criticize it and get away with it. There are protests every day. surely, the M-I must be more powerful than Nazi Germany and the USSR, right? Those guys managed to cut
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
all dissent against them. So, the M-I does exist, but it's no where near as powerful as you say. The money has to come from somewhere, so it will be easily noticed, and if they were so powerful, you should not be alive. All the facts point toward you being full of shit with your stupid conspiracy theories.
If they are classified, how do you know all this? And if they are operational, why not reveal them to the world? If the world knows about these wonder UFO weapons, then it'll be a very good
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
intimidation tool on the part of the US. These vehicles, from what I read, are not good enough to be ace-up-the-sleeve trump cards. We have nukes for those. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to not reveal these to the world. There's no need to worry about top secret info going to enemy hands because the British Chobham armor still has all of its details classified, and it's used by the M1 Abrams AND the Challenger 2. The F-22 has been revealed, and all of the details of that craft is still
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
classified. Thus, the only logical explanation is that the TR-3 does not exist, or it's in extremely early development stages. I'm assuming by your name and profile emblem that you are a nostalgic Soviet communist, and it's a proven fact that communists suck at economics. Money doesnt grow on trees. The MIC can't hide all of those funds for long. Any idiot will notice that. And it makes far more economic sense to reveal a fully developed future fighter because it can be used to gain diplomatic
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
advantages, allowing the gov't to get what it wants without even deploying them, saving time and money due to the fact that maintenance wouldnt be as bad. And if the MIC did have an unlimited budget, there should be more TR-3's, which there isn't (even you say it's in small numbers). Your conspiracy theories do not follow any basic economic sense, which any capitalist would know. Capitalists are there to make a profit, not blow up billions of dollars for shits and giggles.
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Try to say that publicly (over the radio, TV or newspaper) and you will be jailed; in more serious accusations against USA's goverment, you'll be EXECUTED). Any ideology that counters USA's capitalism (imperialism) does not have any infulence in USA. If those people (socialsits, for example) try to change something, they will be jailed.
I have been in your country (USA) and have seen the real life over there which differs greatly from the one that is shown over western media.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Have you ever heard of Fox News? They do nothing but criticize Obama and the current government on TV. People have walked up to Obama's face and said he was a dumbass. People protest in front of the White House. Socialists and Communists are able to express their opinion in the US. Nazis can even express an opinion (look up Sokie). Sure, most have the common sense to not listen to them, but they still have the freedom of speech.
Your ignorance of the US makes me doubt that.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
sorry, it's "Skokie. The town was involved in a Supreme Court case that eventually ruled that Nazis had the freedom of speech, despite being the enemy of the US gov't just a few years prior. Now, the day I can walk into a Communist country, walk up the leader, call him a dumbass in public, and get away with it, that's the day I consider the Communist countries "free".
and I did some more research, and the Abrams can fire more types of ammunition than the T-90, making it more versatile.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Please, don't talk rubish. Chally 2, M1A2 SEP Abrams and T-90M and K2 have similar armor. Although T-90M has stronger turret and glacis than any of the mentioned, but it has also more weak spots. Tusk doesn't mean much, because it offers protection only against weaker AT missiles and weaker IED charge. RPG-29 will go straight through and achieve penetration. Leo2 is curently the best mbt in the world with much better protection than M1A2 SEP and is faster.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 The RPG-29 can go through the Challenger, which is famed for its armor. So saying the RPG-29 can penetrate the Abrams isn't saying much, because the 29 is one of the most modern anti-tank rounds. It can cut through a Leo as well. The Abrams is still faster. The Abrams also has far better armor than the T-90. The T-90 is just a supped up version of the T-72, which got an absolute beating during the Gulf War. The Abrams tank has taken multiple rounds from other Abrams and went unscratched
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
RPG-29 was developed in the mid 80's and introduced in late 80's/beginning of the 90's. It is capable to burn trough abrams like trough paper (except for frontal turret where are DU inserts). Leo has bigger power/weight ratio and much bigger torque, so it's faster than Abrams.
There are many abrams variants, and the newest in service M1A2 SEP offers pretty much the same protection like T-90M, NOT BETTER. T-90M has a little better turret and glacis protection.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 The RPG-29 can still penetrate through a Leo, too. That was my point. To say that the RPG 29 can penetrate the Abrams doesn't make the Leo better, because it can penetrate the Leo, too, The Abrams only has about twice as much ground pressure as a standing man, because of its design. The Abrams, I'll tell you again, has a JET ENGINE, whereas the Leo has a supped up V12 engine used in some CARS. The Abrams with the governor goes at over 40 mph, tying with the Leo despite being heavier.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
RPG-29 can penetrate any modern mbt in the world at almost any spot except front turret. I didn't say that it couldn't burn trough Leo2. Abrams has GAS TURBINE engine which can accept few types of fuel.
GAS TUEBINE AND DIESEL are the only types of tank engines today. JET ENGINE CANNOT BE INSTALED IN TANK. Those are two very different designs. Leo2 has BOAT ENGINE, WHICH CANNOT FIT ANY EXISTING CAR IN THE WORLD. M1A2 SEP could not go over 70 km/h even with removed governor.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Then bringing up the RPG-29 was completely pointless.
honeywell com/sites/aero/Turboprops3_CDF1BA7AE-8A37-9A78-EC1A-E00A4B74F3E9_H52422376-8368-1EC3-AA6D-83165D399CBF htm (put dots in the spaces). This engine is multi-fuel capable.
The Abrams is one of the heaviest tanks in the world, partially because it's powered up a jet engine. You can design a tank around any type of engine. The Leo's boat engine is still an advanced V12 engine, created during WORLD WAR ONE. It can go over 60mph.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Also, Iraqi's were using EXPORT Soviet T-72 models (heavily downgraded) and their own production T-72 (Lion of Babylon) which lacked far behind Soviet army models.
T-90 might look similar to T-72 with K5, but the difference between them is HUGE.
Average T-80U in Cechen wars took 8 RPG hits in their weakest spots before being put out of action.
Russian 3BM48 will punch trough frontal turret of M1A2 SEP, but USA's M829A3 will not penetrate frontal turret of T-90M.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Yes, I know that. Still shows the capabilities of the Abrams, though. Even the normal version would've been whipped badly, although a battle would have some Abrams casualties. Not one Iraqi T-72 was able to knock out an Abrams.
Yeah, I know that. I actually think the T-90 is one of the most badass tanks in the world. Nevertheless, the Abrams still has better armor. It is heavier, after all. The weight comes from the strong armor.
The Americans already developed a round that can
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
penetrate the T-90. That's the great thing about the American 120mm smoothbore: it can take a variety of rounds. Now, since the T-90 is a modern day tank, I'll agree that the T-90 can be a good match with the Abrams in battle. Personally, if you ask me, if any modern day MBT (Abrams, Chally, Leo, T-90, Type 99, and Merkava) fought another different modern day MBT, there'd be a 50/50 chance of either one winning if each had the same caliber of crew. The reason I say Abrams is better is because
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
the Abrams has more experienced crews, due to the Abrams being one of only two MBTs that regularly see combat (the other being the Israeli Merkava).
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Not only USA but Russia also is developing new APFSDS rounds to defeat future threats like M1A3 Abrams. Currently, Russian 3BM48 has the best armor penetration in the world. T-90 has also smoothbore cannon which can accept HEAT, APFSDS, APERS and can fire guided missiles which Abrams cannot.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 The Abrams can accept all of those rounds as well. Now that I've done my research, I'll eat my words regarding how the Abrams has a better design. The Russians and the Americans have both developed new rounds to penetrate each others tanks. I'm guessing its a form of dick-measuring. Nevertheless, though tank design is equal, I'd think the Abrams would win based on crew experience. The Russians deployed T-90s in the small war with Georgia. The Abrams has been fighting for over a decade.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Abrams has a lot better marketing. In fact Abrams has outstanding marketing. That's all.
Rusian crews have very demanding and exhausting trainings to make them experts in any aspect of armored combat. Abrams can fire apfsds, heat, apers, but not missiles.
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 Marketing won't help opinions after it's gone to battle. The M16 got great marketing and it was an absolute POS when it first came out, and people realized that (later models ironed out the problems, though). If the Abrams wasn't that good, people would stop singing high praises. Marketing doesn't sway the opinions of the tanker crews, and every tanker crew that pilots the Abrams say it's one of the best tanks out there.
Also, you of all people should know that no matter how much
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
training is done to a crew, it will never EVER replace experience. Experience is the best of all teachers. Sure, I'm quite sure that the Russian crews of the T-90 get really good training (having the second overall most powerful army in the world requires that sort of dedication), but nevertheless, training can't replace experience, and the Abrams crews have that going for them.
And the Abrams recently did develop missile technology. Look up the XM1111 and the MRM-CE.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Every american product and service has outstanding marketing. Big majority of them are nothing else but another name for "Made in China".
Of course Abrams crew will state that their tanks are the best. Every tankers will say that for their modern tanks...
brox114 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Iraqi tanks were using OBSOLETE 1960's and 70's STEEL penetrators WITH HALF-CHARGE. Those rounds will have hard time to penetrate even old T-62. NONE OF MODERN SOVIET/RUSSIAN APFSDS rounds were used by Iraqi's. Abrams is heavier than T-90, but Soviet and Russians ALWAYS had better alloys than USA. Considering armor, I already told you, M1A2 SEP and T-90M are pretty much on the same level (T-90M has better turret and glacis protection than Abrams, but has also more weaker spots).
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 I doubt that the Soviets had better alloys. NATO comprised of some of the richest countries on Earth, the U.S being currently THE richest country and spends THE HIGHEST amount of money on Defense. I have done some more research on the T-90, and now I'll agree that the T-90's armor is comparable to the Abrams, thus making it comparable to the Chally and Leo as well. The T-90 is a damn good tank, I'll admit. There's only a few hundred in service, so I'm guessing quality trumped quantity.
gameragodzilla 5 months ago
@gameragodzilla
Soviets and now Russians had and still have better alloys. Aslo Russia has more than 4 times bigger "bang for buck" than USA. In Soviet times the difference was even greater.
You mentioned TUSK, so I mentoined weapon which counters thet wih ease (RPG-29).
AGT-1500 is GAS TURBINE engine (AGT stands for Abrams Gas Turbine), which could accept few types of fuel (multi-fuel capability). This is NOT jet engine. Jet engine has quite diferent design and characteristics than tank engine
brox114 5 months ago
@brox114 If that was the case, why does Soviet doctrine rely on a wave of cheap, disposable tanks in pretty much every war it's been involved in. Soviet tanks were made for quantity over quality. The T-90 was created after the Gulf War proved such a plan ill-advised. The U.S always had better resources. They won the spending war, after all.
The RPG-29 can defeat any modern tank. It's a modern anti-tank gun.
It is still more reliable and accept more types than a V12 engine, which is diesel only
gameragodzilla 5 months ago