Leopard 2 has the same gun but inferior ammo. Most Euro tanks use tungsten rounds as AP. Tungsten is far worse at penetrating armor than DU stuff like M289A3.There's no arguing it.
Leopard's engine has the same HP but less torque. Abrams will out accelerate it especially off road.
Both sides claim to have the "best" armor but in truth they're very comparable -assuming M1A1ha or better vs newer Leos.
Leopard 2 has a better primary sight but an inferior secondary.
It doesn't matter if Russia have T-90AM and T-90MS that has French Thermal Sight, new improved turret and composite armor, Kontakt-5, Kaktus ERA, & ARENA active protection system (APS). The M1A2 SEP TUSK I/II Abrams still going destroy T-90AM/MS easily. The Abrams got two new weapons like XM1111 Mid Range Munition (2013) design to destroy APS and ERA. An also the other weapons is M829E4 (2014) which will destroy any heavy and powerful armor and has more range than predecessor.
@SilentEagles Sorry but your bullshit is fake. T-90 have thermal vision AND the T-72 was the FIRST tank to ever have a ballistic computer with rangefinder.
.Yeah, Iraqi T-72s were destroyed because they were export versions with old ammunition.
We still own in modern armored warfare my friend.
Anybody think T-90 can defeat Abrams obviously STUPID! The Russian T-90 doesn't even have Thermal sight only US/NATO has it which they could see, spot, and knock out Russian tanks so easily.
Since Russian modernize T-90 like T-90AM & T-90MS are equipped with French made Catherine-FC from THALES, an enhanced environmental control system supplied by Israel’s Kinetics Ltd for providing cooled air to the fighting compartment, integrated tactical system, satellite navigation and others.
The reason why M1 Abrams isn't number one is because it didn't face it's greatest rival which they didn't show it only on TV. The M1A2 SEP TUSK I/II Abrams rival are German Leopard 2A6/A7, British Challenger 2/2E, & French Leclerc.
Leopard 2 never seen in action. The Top 10 video only talk about the best tank that seen action in war. They are not talking about the Top 10 modern tank of today.
@tops1028 Your facts are a bit misleading my friend.
Of the 23 lost in the Gulf War, 7 were the result of friendly fire, not actual hostilities, and 2 more were self-destructed in order to prevent capture by the enemy. In addition to that, the Abrams destroyed 3,000 enemy vehicles.
@tops1028 Your records don't mention the fact that only 14 Abrams were lost in comparison to 3,000 enemy vehicles. A kill rate of 214 vehicles to 1 Abrams is nothing to sneeze at. By comparison, the T-90 has never seen combat, and the Challenger is rarely used.
this is clearly not the best tank in the world today since the challenger is clearly better...crap american logic says the abrams is better because its on an american show...total bias and therefore not to be trusted
@AstroWaldo first off the challenger has the record for the longest range tank kill, second the challenger also has gun stabilization, thirdly jet engines are less reliable and use more fuel than conventional engines which can be just as powerful and finally the challenger's armor is an enhanced version of chobham armor which is superior to the version the abrams uses, that's why its better.
@empdraco How is the Challenger better? The Abrams has a better gun (fin-stabilized rounds are just as accurate as rifled rounds, and you can fire a wider variety), better targeting system (auto-stabilizing gun allows for fire on the move over rough terrain), better engine (it guzzles gas, but works quieter, more reliably, and faster, plus US logistics ensure gas shortage isn't a problem), and better armor (it's the same Chobham armor, but reinforced with depleted uranium)
The only reason why more Abrams were lost than Challengers is that there are far more Abrams deployed than Challengers, meaning there is a higher likelyhood of the enemy getting lucky on an Abrams than a Challenger. If there were 5000 Challenger IIs deployed instead of only a few hundred, losses will dial up accordingly. Plus, the numbers also work in the Abrams favor, as the Abrams contributes the most out of all the tanks it fought with, making it the gold standard of tanks.
@gameragodzilla if less Challengers are being deployed it means more fire will be opened to which means the losses will be more massive.....your logic sucks
Your logic sucks. If there are more Abrams, that means you are more likely to aim at an Abrams. 778777778777777877777 It's much easier to see the 7's than it is to see the 8's. Same thing for Abrams and the Challengers.
@xXMrGamePlayerXx WTF are you saying? More fire will be opened? It's kind of hard to suffer any kind of damage of the enemy never sees you. As TheYamsinacan stated, you are more likely to see an Abrams than a Challenger, just like you are more likely to see 7s than 8s.
To put this point in perspective, let's say we need to assault an enemy position with a group of infantry guys. We have 100 guys wielding assault rifles and 1 guy wielding a pistol. Every person has the same amount of skill After the battle, we lost 10 guys with assault rifles, but the 1 guy wielding a pistol is still alive. Does that mean pistol > Assault rifle? No, it doesn't. Same thing with the Abrams vs the Challenger.
@xXMrGamePlayerXx It means that you are not likely to die if you don't come in contact with the enemy, and you are less likely to die if your enemy mostly concentrates their ordnance and power onto another tank. Therefore, the whole "no challengers were lost" is a classic example of twisting the stats, or, as Mark Twain put it, made up of "lies, damn lies, and statistics"
@gameragodzilla exactly because "and you are less likely to die if your enemy mostly concentrates their ordnance and power onto another tank" the sending fewer tanks is more dangerous.....
@gameragodzilla There have been many accounts of Challengers and Abrams taking the same punishment yet the Abram has fallen. Face it, the challenger 2 possesses better armour.
@pnelad14 Like when? Abrams and Challengers can both take on tank fire and rpgs. The biggest problem facing at least the Abrams tank is roadside IEDs which can be pretty powerful AND also hits at the underbelly of the tank. Has a Challenger survived that? If no, then there is nothing the Challenger survived that the Abrams didn't survive, either. After all, they use similar armor.
@gameragodzilla "The Challenger 2 remained in Iraq until roughly 2009. For a number of years it operated at Squadron strength, which is just 14 vehicles. Many claim that as there were less Challenger 2’s than the US Abrams series deployed to Iraq, the Abrams would therefore take greater losses.
@pnelad14 After the invasion and during the "occupation" or Iraq, 14 Challenger 2’s and the CRARRV were out working almost every night and therefore were in greater demand than their Abrams cousin, which meant these Challenger 2 were still attacked regularly. Sadly 5% of the Abrams deployed were returned to the US as either heavily damaged or destroyed during this period."
@gameragodzilla The Challenger 2 had no losses, despite being attacked every night by the same enemy, with the same weapons. To say that British Forces did not receive the same intense level of attack, though on a smaller scale, is seen by British Forces as an insult. So please, do some research. And if you wish to argue with the sources, argue against Tanknut Dave. Do I win? :P
@pnelad14 Abrams are also attacked every night. My point is that while individual Challys and Abrams can, and DO, encounter the same amount of resistance, the fact remains that there are more Abrams IN TOTAL to experience continued resistance, thus allowing the enemy to get lucky in a few percentage of cases.
@pnelad14 Abrams are also attacked every night. My point is that while individual Challys and Abrams can, and DO, encounter the same amount of resistance, the fact remains that there are more Abrams IN TOTAL to experience continued resistance. That means that it is far more likely for the enemy to encounter an Abrams than a Chally during combat, and there are instances where the enemy gets lucky, and since you encounter Abrams more often, you are more likely to get lucky with an Abrams
It's like my assault team analogy I posted earlier. I have 100 guys with assault rifles and 1 guy with a pistol assault an enemy position. The enemy consists of a bunch of poorly trained n00bs, but they still fight ferociously. Both the riflemen and the one guy with a pistol encounter the same amount of resistance and have the same amount of skill. In the process, I lose 10 riflemen, but the pistol guy is still alive. Does that mean pistol > Assault rifle? No. Same thing here.
@pnelad14 btw, Tank Nut Dave is a great website, but the team that compiles this stuff is British. Every person says their country's tank is the best. The Americans think the Abrams is the best. The Russians say it's the T-90. The Germans the Leopard 2. The Israelis the Merkava. The Chinese the Type 99. The Brits the Challenger 2. In any objective sense, all these tanks are equal. We only support one tank over the other due to our affinity with the country of origin.
@gameragodzilla No...I'm not resorting to circular reasoning. I'm looking at the statistics and comparing them. The CR2 possesses a rifled gun meaning it can fire at greater distances while retaining accuracy compared to the Leopard 2 and the M1A2 Abram. Statistically, the CR2 has been shown to provide greater protection than the M1A2 Abram...But this is no surprise due to its Dorchester armour. Overall the facts are in favour of the CR2, that is why I label it as the best tank.
@pnelad14 Just because it's more accurate doesn't mean that the Abrams and Leo can't hit the broad side of a barn. All 3 tanks are perfectly capable of hitting any practical distance, meaning that there are only a few specific circumstances where the extreme accuracy of a rifled barrel is needed. Granted, it's an interesting niche, but it's not the end all solution. Plus, rifled barrels reduce the types of ammunition that can be fired, which can be annoying when NATO standards include
many weapons that would wear out a rifled barrel very quickly. Now, how has the Chally ever had statistically greater protection? Name me one instance where the Chally survived something that an Abrams didn't. Granted, were some Abrams lost? You bet. However, those situations are highly unique and it is unlikely that the Chally would've done much better in a similar situation. Armor for both tanks is similar. Chally has 2nd gen Chobham, Abrams has Depleted Uranium plates.
@gameragodzilla You're missing the point. If they were (for what ever reason) to enagage in 1 v1 the CR2 possesses a higher probability of winning, if we look at the facts. The CR2 possesses better range....WHICH means it can throw a punch at an Abram but the Abram can't throw one back. The CR2 has better armour as it is 1 up from Chobham, it has also took the same punishment an m1 Abram has...Yet the Abram fell and the CR2 didn't. The evidence speaks for it self.
@pnelad14 It is highly unlikely any sort of tank battle will take place in those kind of ranges. Just like sniper rifles, even though they can shoot over 1 mile, the vast majority of sniping missions occur at much less distances. Besides, the Abrams is much faster than the Challenger, and can easily close that gap. Then, it's basically a slugfest. It's likely that the Abrams will have a slight advantage due to the fact that the primary round the rifled barrel fires, the HESH round, can
be defeated by modern ERA (in fact, that's the reason why every single other country switched from HESH to other types of rounds besides Britain). Chobham armor, especially with Depleted Uranium, will resist it even better. The Abrams originally had a rifled gun, but the Americans upgraded to a smoothbore, because there are far more options to fire in a smoothbore, and it is still accurate for any practical purpose. The HESH round's more suited for bunker busting, not tank battle
@gameragodzilla Then the CR2 will likely be saved due to its Dorchester armour....By the way the Gun the CR2 possesses is not only better at ranges, but is stronger than the Abram's gun which means the CR2 will have a greater chance of penetrating the Abram. All though the Abram's mobility is good it will account for little at close ranges.
@pnelad14 A Challenger 2 was destroyed by another Challenger 2 in a blue on blue incident, while a stricken Abrams that the Army decided was too much work to lug back home and decided to destroy on site took multiple rounds before a penetration occurred, which didn't even do much damage due to the blow-out panels installed. That's with the famed "Silver bullet" round that is much more powerful than HESH rounds (which has issue with ERA).
The rifled round is NOT stronger. The only advantage it has is that it has greater range, and its DISADVANTAGE is the fact that it's less powerful, because the reason every other country but Britain stopped using HESH rounds (which require a rifled gun) is because it doesn't do very well against Explosive Reactive Armor, which is still inferior to Chobham.
Plus, the fire control system for the M1A2 is better, so it'll be better at close range.
@gameragodzilla You're clutching at straws. The only reason the CR2 was destroyed was due to the HESH round hitting the OPEN hatch of the CR2 enabling the ammuntion to be subjected to the hot fragments of the round. Please do more reseach next time. Like it or not, but the ERA at the side of the Abram is a one trick pony. It WILL eventually leave the tank vulnerable. In additon you make a valid point about the rifle gun. But you're forgetting one thing, THEY ARE DIFFERENT (cont)
@pnelad14 Still, the fact that ERA (which is inferior to DU reinforced Chobham) can still defeat HESH rounds means that even if the Challenger got the first shot, there would be very minimal damage. Plus, due to the way each gun is structured, the Abrams can fire faster than the Chally. In fact, ERA is the main reason everyone else isn't using HESH anymore, because Chinese and Russian tanks all use it, both of which are likely adversaries.
@gameragodzilla GUNS. The Abram uses a "L44 120mm smoothbore (as used by the German Leopard 2 series)" . The CR2 uses a calibre Length 55. The L55 is more powerful. So please, do some more research. The fire control system won't account for much at close range...At close ranges....It's just point and shoot. Providing the Abram can get close enough. My sources by the way were the official MOD reports of the Destroyed CR2 which TND provided.
@pnelad14 The thing is, the CR2 doesn't use the "Silver bullet" round that the Americans use. Sure, the Leopard will be stronger as it can fire that round from a longer barrel, but the rifled gun cannot fire that type of round without wearing out the barrel very very quickly. Plus, fire control systems are very important, as it allows the gunner to fire basically on the move. Not to mention the fact that close range for tanks is still a long distance for manual aiming.
@gameragodzilla OK...The CR2 would likely use the SABOT round...As it is believed that CHOBHAM armour is more effective against heat than kinetic energy. The point you've made about rifled gun are valid...But the L30 (the CR2 uses) has been reported to use technology which doesn't wear down the barrel quickly. Wearing down wouldn't be a concern in a 1v1 anyway as the CR2 can be claimed to fire about 650 times before the gun is rendered worn out. Even though the Abram can --
@pnelad14 Until you can give me a source on the fact that the L30 has technology to reduce wear, I will remain skeptical. After all, considering how closely NATO countries work together (the Abrams has British armor and German gun), I would be surprised if the British didn't share this knowledge. Of course, it is true that it wouldn't be a concern in 1v1, but nevertheless, the Abrams still has much more options to fire.
@pnelad14 And clearly doesn't work all that great considering no one else is using it. And it's not like other NATO allies won't use it. After all, the Abrams is using British designed Chobham armor, and is using a German designed L44 main gun, so it's not like the US has too big of an ego to use a foreign designed weapon.
@gameragodzilla That's not even going into the fact that the CR2 doesn't use APFSDS rounds that people are worried about to cause wearing in the first place, so if you reinforced the barrel to fire rounds that were designed for that particular barrel, you shouldn't brag about it. When you prove to me that the rifled barrel can fire ALL types of rounds, THAT'S when I'll agree that a rifled gun is better. There's a reason no one else is using them.
@gameragodzilla To quote one British CR2 crewman " Thanks to the quality of the L30, the old issue of wearing down of the rifling through repeated firing is almost non-existent. On average we fire 450+ rounds a year on active vehicles during training exercises and we averaged 200 during Operation Telic 1. In all my years of service, I've never known an L30 to be replaced due to wearing of the rifling ".
@gameragodzilla Fire faster than the CR2 it is a significant time...They are quite on par IIRC. However like it or not...The CR2 can take more of a punishment than an Abram. Also the thing about the fire control...We need to actually have a distance because point blank range IIRC is 50 yards....At that sort of distance....It is NOT needed, but it is still nice to have...
@pnelad14 Now yes, I would agree with you that they would be equal. Even at the ranges I am referring to, the winner will be the tank with the better crew. I believe that all Western tank designs are more or less equal, differing only in slight aspects because they emphasize different niches. The Abrams has better mobility and fire control. The Chally is much more accurate and very heavily armored, and the Leo has a much stronger main gun. Still, none are any tank I want to go against.
@gameragodzilla Of course they are essentially equal...But in a 1v1, I believe it's the CR2 protection and firepower which makes it the most effective. The true weakness is that CR2 have not been massed produced, meaning that if the CR2 was versing quality such as the Abram on mass scale...It would encounter much difficulty.
@pnelad14 The protection and firepower, we established, is pretty much the same. The Chally has 2nd gen Chobham, and the Abrams has DU-reinforced 1st gen Chobham, both of which are extremely tough. We also established that the firepower for both is similar in terms of power, considering the waning of HESH rounds due to advancements in ERA and the existence of APFSDS for the Abrams would equalize the longer barrel of the Chally. Thus, these tanks are pretty much equal, even in 1v1 fight
As I have said, the only advantages one has over the other is the much greater accuracy given by the rifled gun for the Chally, and the superior fire control system for the Abrams that takes into account everything from the weather to the bend of the barrel. Either way, neither trait will provide a significant advantage over the other, thus concluding that even in a 1v1 fight, both tanks have an equal chance of winning, and the winner is, thus, the one with the better crew.
@gameragodzilla But that's the point, I have established through statistics that its protection is better. I believe the gun is better as the cr2 can engage from a distance, like it or not but your Abram will be putting it self at grave danger when trying to get into range of the CR2. OF COUSRE it depends on the crew, but when it comes statistics...You can't deny they support the CR2 more.
@pnelad14 The main thing is, it isn't better.Everything the Chally survived, the Abrams has, as well. Tank rounds, even from other Abrams, bounce off the armor of the tank. Plus, we already established that the distance between the two wouldn't be that great, as you're the one who claimed that the superior fire control system of the Abrams wouldn't really matter. Thus, both these advantages have been negated by the parameters we've established, meaning that the stats support neither.
Therefore, if we were to go by simple advantages, that means that the Chally would have an advantage at extremely long ranges, but that requires an extremely accurate gunner. The Abrams much superior mobility will allow it to get in range, and thus giving the advantage to the Abrams with the superior fire control system. Go any closer, and manual aiming is fine for both, meaning that the winner depends on how far each tank is from each other, with the most common distance in tank
warfare favoring neither, as both fire control systems and accuracy are perfectly adequate for the situation at hand. Thus, the eventual battle will be a simple slugfest as neither side does serious damage to the absurdly strong armor of both, until one side gets a lucky or skilled shot that hits a very vulnerable area. Either way, it depends more on luck and skill of the crew than the person merits of the tank at hand.
@gameragodzilla You're not paying heed....Nor using sense...The CR2 would do everything in its power to stay out of the reach of the Abram. And your point about everything the CR2 has survived so has the Abram is blatant ignorance. Blacktaildefence has many video showing the Abram being penetrated by a RPG-7 in the side armour! The CR2 got hit by 70 of them...Had to disengage and was repaired in under 6 hours. In operation Iraqi freedom a handful of Abrams were lost....Not 1 CR2-
@pnelad14 How would the CR2 get out of the Abrams' reach? It's already very underpowered compared to its counterparts, and the Abrams mobility is much better. Blacktaildefense is complete BS. I looked at all of his information, and all of it was from outdated speculation articles from before the Gulf War. The only Abrams that were ever destroyed were from either friendly fire or really powerful IEDs. Most actually had reparable damage, but were simply scuttled because it was determined
that lugging it back to get it repaired was too much work (and even scuttling can take some time due to the absurd armor). And I have already showed you that the sole reason no Challys were lost was because Challys arent' encountered in large enough numbers for the enemy to score a lucky hit. Please read my 1 guy with a pistol and 100 guys with assault rifles analogy. Just because the guy with the pistol lived doesn't mean that the pistol is superior to the assault rifle.
@gameragodzilla You make so many idiotic points...If a CR2 was to go against the Abrams it would not deploy IN RANGE You're mobility is not greatly better....You do not know what you're talking about. You obviously didn't watch the chapter about protection...As you'd be aware of DU infact the mention of that kind of contradicts what you said. Abrams have been destroyed on many occasions...Again you're not paying heed. THERE ARE sources saying the CR2 was used more than the ABRAM
@pnelad14 And I have already said that it is highly unlikely for a Chally to hit that range. Just because it CAN doesn't mean it will. It was a record shot Most engagements for both tanks happen, AT FURTHEST, at 4 km, which is in range for the Abrams' fire control system to work. Abrams have been damaged before, and it was determined that it was too much work to lug back, so it was destroyed on site. I have seen so called "destroyed Abrams" before, and all of them were scuttled tanks.
@MyJimmyMonster "Apaches are not heavily armoured and it takes just one rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) to bring one down. Compare that with one British Challenger near Basra which survived being hit by 70 RPGs."
@pnelad14 I still don't trust it. After 70 hits from RPG's, or any late 20th century anti-tank weapon, the armour on any tank would eventually cripple.
@gameragodzilla Fell. There was numerous sources saying the CR2 received everything the Abrams did. So you're making things up. The fire control system in CC is going to be useless...But do you really think a CR2 which can fire at longer distances would let an Abram get to it..? That is SILLY...
@pnelad14 The RPG-7 thing was already proven to be from an untrustworthy source (that guy seems to have a grudge against American military equipment. It's probably a Russian nationalist), and it wouldn't make much sense considering the Abrams has survived much worse (tank rounds), thus, there is nothing a Chally has survived that an Abrams has also survived. Finally, it is highly unlikely a Chally would be able to stay in that range for long. In order to hit anything at that range, it
requires that both targets are standing perfectly still on a completely flat terrain with the target doing nothing to depend itself (as was the case when the Challenger scored that record hit). In the chaos of war, hitting anything at that range would be next to impossible, especially with the mobility of the Abrams, thus forcing any battle to occur at ranges where the superior fire control system of the Abrams will be within range. Hitting a moving target at several km is SILLY.
@pnelad14 If you have a very good fire control system. However, such system does not work at the extreme ranges you're talking about, meaning it's manual aiming only. Hitting ANYTHING manually is very hard, especially if a target is moving. I'm sorry, but this statement is what truly destroys any sort of credibility you have. Unless the gunner of the Chally was an eagle-eyed God, he won't be able to hit a moving target manually. By the time he can hit, the Abrams is in range.
@gameragodzilla I just fail to see how you can not say the CR2 is a better tank. I'll put simply. Tanks are based on 3 key features: Firepower, mobility and protection. The CR2 has shown its self to be better than the Abram at protection. You argue it was due to the fact it had smaller numbers...Yet if anything it was in use more than the Abrams. Source TND. Firepower...The CR2 has a better gun as it can strike at longer distances, the l55 is stronger than the L44. Mobilty-M1wins
@pnelad14 The Chally is more accurate in firepower, but lacks in punch. Even with the increased barrel, HESH rounds cannot match DU-APFSDS rounds (proven by the fact that HESH can be defeated by ERA, but DU-APFSDS can defeat ERA). Mobility is much better than the Chally (at the cost of fuel efficiency). The armor is equal in both. Stop reciting BS you found on some Russian nationalist's ranting and get some real facts. DU-reinforced armor is very good. Thus, Chally isn't better.
Thus, it can be concluded that the only real advantage the Chally has is long range accuracy. The only real advantage the Abrams has is superior fire control system. At ranges where tank battles typically happen, neither will really matter, as both will be accurate enough to hit each other. Both armor is top of the line, and both firepower is extreme. Thus, the only tank to win will be the one with the better crew. Stop acting like a stupid Chally salesman and accept the facts.
@gameragodzilla@gameragodzilla Received the same amount of damage. You call BTD a untrustworthy source...OK...We'll ignore his vids... google history of Abrams tank on wiki, it disproves what you said.....And it would make sense because the ABRAMS HAS ERA ON ITS SIDES Where IT WAS STRUCK....you didn't watch it.
@pnelad14 I google the history of the Abrams all the time. It's a hobby. Nobody except diehard American haters have anything but praise for the Depleted Uranium reinforced armor. The whole "it can't take a single RPG" is a constantly debunked piece of BS on any tank enthusiast forum. The fact of the matter is, many people even put the Abrams ahead due to the use of Depleted Uranium. I just happen to rate 2nd gen Chobham as similar in strength. NOT superior, however.
@gameragodzilla first off anyone who knows about ballistics know that spin stabilization is better, why do you think the challenger has the record for the longest range tank kill, second don't you think the rest of the world has caught on to gun stabilization by now, this should be obvious, thirdly jet engines are less reliable and use more fuel as you said yourself and finally it is not the same chobham armor, the challenger's is an enhanced version, that's why its better.
@empdraco Just because it's better doesn't mean smoothbore is crap. Smoothbore is accurate for every practical purpose, AND it can fire a larger variety of rounds (many types of rounds would very quickly wear out a rifled barrel). Also, the Abrams DOES have gun stabilization, which makes this point moot. Third, jet engines are much more reliable and much quieter, so stop talking outta your ass. The only disadvantage is the fuel consumption, and it clearly isn't a real problem as the
one thing the US is good at is logistics (shipping stuff from point A to point B), which is why the US can operate 10X more Abrams than the British operate Challys with more fuel per tank, and yet, still not have every tank turn into fuel-deprived bunkers. Finally, Abrams tanks use Depleted Uranium armor plates, which is even tougher than the so-called "enhanced" armor, as it is Chobham armor with the toughest plating currently available.
Forgot! I have decided to include the horsepower per tonne specs for the Challenger 2 and the M1 Abrams. The Challenger 2 has 19.2 h/t. The Abrams has 24.5 h/t. The 2 tanks weigh the exact same. This gives the Chally 2 a max speed of 25 mph off road, and the Abrams 30 mph off road (and that is with the engine governor placed on the engine to PREVENT THE TANK FROM GOING SO FAST THAT IT DAMAGES THE TRACKS).
Abrams has the better engine (1200hp for Chally 2 vs 1500hp for Abrams).
@gameragodzilla first off the challenger can fire HESH shells which the abrams can't because it's smoothbored, second i didn't say the abrams didn't have gun stabilization, wake up I was saying the challenger has it too, thirdly every tank up to the abrams and even tanks since it have been built with conventional engines and in the case of the challenger and the leopard they are just as if not more reliable and more efficient, you think I'm talking out my ass try me punk
@empdraco HESH rounds are becoming useless with the prevalence of Explosive Reactive Armor that our potential enemies now use. Plus, HESH can't penetrate Chobham armor, either. Chemical energy weapons are the future. That's why every other country is using smoothbore, and the Brits are considering using the German L55 SMOOTHEBORE gun as an upgrade. The reason the Chally and Leo use "conventional" engines is because they can't afford to blow all the huge amount of cash the US uses to
buy and transport fuel. Like I said, the one disadvantage a jet engine has is the fact that it is a compete fuel hog, which is the reason why only the US can afford it, with our huge defense budget and logistic ability. We're not stupid. If a jet engine really is no better than diesel, we would've went with a diesel engine. The jet engine is much quieter and moves more reliably. That's why the US uses it. Diesel is for people who can't afford a fuel hog, which is NOT the US.
@gameragodzilla do you even know what a HESH round is, it is chemical energy, its used to cause splintering and fragmenting of armor on the inside of a tank by creating shock waves, besides the challenger can fire heat rounds too, so its not as limited as you seem to think, furthermore, as you said conventional engines are less expensive, so letts tally it up, hust as reliable if not more so than a jet engine, more fuel efficient and more cost effecive, sounds like a win to me
@empdraco It's kinetic (High Energy Squash Head). Your description fills the kinetic definition. Now yes, it's not as limited as I think, and I think the rifled barrel fills a very interesting niche (basically, it's a sniper tank), but that does not mean it is better than the Abrams (which has more options). Conventional engines are less expensive in terms of fuel use, so yeah, a Chally 2 would be cheaper. The Abrams has better mobility, though, as I have shown.
Personally, if you ask me, each of these tanks are great tanks and on par with each other. Sure, there are a few advantages one has over the other (chally 2 being longer ranged, the Abrams having better mobility), but overall, I'd say that they're the same in terms of combat effectiveness. The only reason why I rank the Abrams higher is simply because there are more of them. In a 1v1 fight, it would be completely equal.
I still envy the installed stove on the Chally, though
@gameragodzilla I knew you didn't know, it's High Explosive Spuash Head, it uses a thin nose cap and an explosive core to conform to the armor it strikes and then detonates to create the shock wave, its gun is just as capable in terms of filling a multiplicity of roles, its no niche weapon, it's just better, conventional engines are physically less expensive and while maybe a little slower it makes up for it with better armor, 4 abrams were lost in desert storm, no challys were
Do you know why the Abrams won that battle and only 4 got destroyed and they killed 3000 of Sadamm's tanks? Because the tanks that former USSR supplied to his army were watered down and pure shitty tanks. Sadamm's tanks had shitty knock off armor and the ammunition that was supplied to them were training rounds and not actual HE rounds. Sadamm got duped by the Russians into thinking he bought the real deal.
@1992Xenomorph, actually a lot of those tanks were versions that the Iraqi's copied from Soviet style tanks, so most of the tanks and ammo aren't that old. But you have to remember they did have modern ATGM, attack helicopters and jets which the tanks faced.
why this is not number one becaue made in US and this is probably a US program!? stupid just stupid again! i think that this tank is so heavy that it might get stuck on the forest or on the mud or other places or even sink like in the river! too heavey and too big, maybe and too drunk tank! "fat girl"! i mean that it use too much about diesel or petrol or gasoline what ever it drinks! and is that gun so good! and i think that MERKAVA and LEOPARD and CHALLENGER and T95 are better than ABRAM!
The technical specifications of the Abrams do not tell the whole story. The real difference is made in crew quality and American tank crews have the decided edge over their counterparts in other countries. This is due to two factors: Combat experience in two wars since 1990, and much better training, most notably at the National Training Center.
Looking purely at combat performance, the Abrams is the best tank. It has a variant of Chobham/Burlington armor. But in the case of the Abrams it is improved with a layer of steel encased depleted uranium (DU). The radioactivity of DU is harmless. It is a very dense material which gives a lot of extra protection against kinetic energy (sabot) projectiles.
I agree that as a tank itself, the M1 should not be #2. But the original video states in the beginning, before starting with #10, that this programme rates tanks based on what they did, not what they are truly capable of. Unfortunate, but yeah, this is the wisdom of Military Channel. *shrugs*
After all, guess what made #1? That's how this show rates tanks.
this is bullshit challeger is a better tank and tank a russian t 90 got hit by chechens 7 times anti tank rockets and drive off dont believe this as this is bullshit
@BeamMeUpScotty24, the Abrams 120mm gun is American, they just got rights from the original German manufacturer, Chobham armor was created by the US. Your ass aint nothing.
@shadowdancerRFW Stick to playing your video games. It is the closest you will ever come to being an expert on anything modern and sophisticated bitch. This tank is the top modern tank for a reason. Next time, shut the fuck up and pay attention to what the narrator is saying. Or can you pay attention bitch? I understand you little kids have a had time paying attention these days.
@ARepublicanVictory When are you gonna learn that nothing your stupid US says is true. I bet you're one of those idiots who still think 9/11 was a terrorist hit.
It is a known fact the gun is based on the old L44 rheinmetal gun, I have facts you have a load of bullshit. Grow up kid and open your eyes.
@shadowdancerRFW also teh chobham armour is british made so it wouldnt be nearly as tough if it wasnt for that its a very good tank but relys on to many countries to make it good
@EvilxMerlin Point 1 : The sky-scrappers are specially designed to survive ANY air collision. No way a simple civilian plane would scratch it.
Point 2 : Which is obvious even for those with IQ of 50 (among which you don't register). IF, and I greatly stress IF, the plane could knock out the building, then the building itself should have been ripped in half, with the superior half falling. But those buildings feel downwards, just like they do when are demolished. GAME. SET. MATCH
@EvilxMerlin Americans obviously can't make good enough diesel engine like Germans at this point. Operational range is unbelievably pathetic, even the speed is behind german tank. leopard 2's top speed is 45mph, m1a2 is 42mph. M1A2 has thicker armor but Leopard 2 has enough armor to stand M1A2's L44.
Actually the M1A2's top speed is GOVERNED to 42mph, but can and has done over 60mph. The L44 is just the cannon, once again you fail to understand basic tanking. As a gun is only one part of the equation. M829E4 can easily defeat ANY tanks armour today, including the Russian Kontakt-5 which is superior to the Leopards armour. Operational range on the M1A2SEP is over 250 miles. Tank range isn't everything in today's world. But you already know that.
@EvilxMerlin Germany is not some mediocre mid east country who can't build their own tank. Germany has one of the most advanced automobile technology. Americans think they are best at everything when they are not and you are the perfect example. I can agree with #1 in aerospace but not in machinery. tank range is definitely something because shorter operational range means more constant supplies and makes supply lines more vulnerable.
@EvilxMerlin If it comes head to head, German armor and American armor doesn't make any difference because both side are capable of taking one out with same amount of ammo. Germans get edge because they have few more advantages like accuracy and operational range.
Actually the American weapons have the accuracy and range. Again, you are focusing on just the gun, and not the ammo. the M829E4 changes quite few things.
@EvilxMerlin and again you are trying to deny a simple logic. longer barrel=better accuracy. Germany is not some 3rd world country who can't build their own gun. even for ammo, I'm pretty sure Germany has their own ammo which is also very accurate. I'm only focusing on a gun because that will be the one that makes difference since both are made by very advanced technology that it will come down to a small difference like that. I can respect M1 but I don't see it better than Leopard 2.
No, its not so simple, with rocket shells, longer barrels mean less and less. No country has ammo YET similar to the 828E4. The German's current most advanced round is the DM12A1. And this doesn't even touch on the XM1111 which is currently just being fielded now.
The operational range is only 250 miles if the tank travels very fast. The turbine engine consumes more fuel the slower it is moving. An idling Abrams will empty its fuel tank in 8 hours! An MBT often has to make stops or move slowly in support of infantry or something.
@AstroWaldo The armour was created at the British tank research centre at Chobham Common, England. hence why it is called Chobham armour. fucking idiot.
@BeamMeUpScotty245 YOU ARE ANOTHER USELESS IDIOT WHO DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Learn a thing or two about tanks before you open your stupid fucking mouth idiot. Shut the fuck up and listen to the narrator before you post dumb bullshit.
@ARepublicanVictory The Abrams is a good tank, granted, it's just that a lot of things about it don't make sense. Take the jet turbine, what is that for? Challenger 2 and Leopard are just as fast if not fast, and use way less fuel. The gun is German, that's a fact, and that armour was invented by a Brit, the Americans modified it sure. Survivability and lethality are equal to other tanks; endurance, and ease of support, both logistical and by infantry, the M1 loses
The Challenger doesn't have the armour, speed or communications gear that the M1A1's and up have. The Challenger is a good tank, just not to the same level as the M1. The M1 still has better armour than even the L2A6 and in the whole L55 vs. L44 gun, the L44 simply fires more advanced ammo that gives it the edge over the L55. The Leopard is more manuverable, but the M1 is faster.
@EvilxMerlin m1 was a pathetic operational range in relation to the fuel that it consumes. M1 has twice the fuel tank that a leopard 2 has, yet it still has a smaller range. Speed is irrelevant: it is not a meaningful form of protection for an MBT. Mobility and operational range are more important, and leo2 is much better in this regard. leo can also be fitted with drop tanks, further increasing range: abrams cant. furthermore, I have no idea where you get the idea that chal2 is less armored.
Um, speed is irrelevant? Stop with the armchair tank commander stuff, and learn some history. If this is your "claim" you really have no right talking about tanks in any manner at all.
@EvilxMerlin Yes, at least the speed differences in question. Speed is not a meaningful form of protection for an MBT. Mobility is not speed: mobility is the freedom of movement.
@USAAIRPOWER No, I criticise this show for saying, it's the best, but a lot of other tanks have the same capability, with less drawbacks. So we don't build our own tanks, it would be economically retarded to design our own when we only buy about 150 tanks. Are you saying Canadians are stupid? Check the Canadarm you moron, we're as advanced as you, if we weren't why would you take the LAV III design for your Stryker? The assumption that all Canadians are Eskimos just insults your intelligence
comparing the m1a2 to leapard 2 is unfair the m1a2 is an older tank if the US would make a new generation of mbt it would make the leo 2 look like a mere toy
this is best hahahahahahaahhaha the Leopard 2 will wipe the floor with it and you say its the best tank today and where is the leopard 2 srsly its better then some shit merkus
the challenger and challenger 2 are as deadly as this tank and yet this one gets high fear factor and low production. the challenger also has low production but low fear factor really?
where did the *only 3000 of these were produced* go?
I think a T-90 would be able to take down an Abrams, because it has a smaller profile, larger gun, faster, and emits less heat, and also because it's Russian, so theres secrets behind it
Challenger and Leopard 2 will always triumph in battle, they both have the same armour and design principals, the Abrams just looks like a Leo and Chally put together...
reading over this post just have ask 1 thing why has the cr2 gone to a smoothbore gun and there has been 4 damaged 2 from FF and 2 from rpgs in Iraq
32208lady 21 hours ago
It must suck when you're driving into a battle, then run out of gas :l
dojokonojo 1 week ago
No mention of the Leopard tanks. It is odd because the gun of the M1A1 is the same as the Leopard's.
Bereft008 1 week ago
USA=SHIT CONTRY SHIT ARMY SHIT TANK
leopard 2 have a better: gun engine armore range armore speed
haw the fuck is abrams better then leopard 2???
you are crayzi
this video is anoder usa propaganda
libertateaaa 1 week ago
@libertateaaa
Leopard 2 has the same gun but inferior ammo. Most Euro tanks use tungsten rounds as AP. Tungsten is far worse at penetrating armor than DU stuff like M289A3.There's no arguing it.
Leopard's engine has the same HP but less torque. Abrams will out accelerate it especially off road.
Both sides claim to have the "best" armor but in truth they're very comparable -assuming M1A1ha or better vs newer Leos.
Leopard 2 has a better primary sight but an inferior secondary.
TonyA6453 1 week ago
@libertateaaa "shit country shit army shit tank", it might be not as good as the leopard but shit
coming from your poor ignorance and stupid grammar puts your country on a worse place
UncleRecolour 2 days ago
It doesn't matter if Russia have T-90AM and T-90MS that has French Thermal Sight, new improved turret and composite armor, Kontakt-5, Kaktus ERA, & ARENA active protection system (APS). The M1A2 SEP TUSK I/II Abrams still going destroy T-90AM/MS easily. The Abrams got two new weapons like XM1111 Mid Range Munition (2013) design to destroy APS and ERA. An also the other weapons is M829E4 (2014) which will destroy any heavy and powerful armor and has more range than predecessor.
SilentEagles 1 week ago
@SilentEagles Sorry but your bullshit is fake. T-90 have thermal vision AND the T-72 was the FIRST tank to ever have a ballistic computer with rangefinder.
.Yeah, Iraqi T-72s were destroyed because they were export versions with old ammunition.
We still own in modern armored warfare my friend.
RockRebel1998 1 week ago
Anybody think T-90 can defeat Abrams obviously STUPID! The Russian T-90 doesn't even have Thermal sight only US/NATO has it which they could see, spot, and knock out Russian tanks so easily.
Since Russian modernize T-90 like T-90AM & T-90MS are equipped with French made Catherine-FC from THALES, an enhanced environmental control system supplied by Israel’s Kinetics Ltd for providing cooled air to the fighting compartment, integrated tactical system, satellite navigation and others.
SilentEagles 1 week ago
The reason why M1 Abrams isn't number one is because it didn't face it's greatest rival which they didn't show it only on TV. The M1A2 SEP TUSK I/II Abrams rival are German Leopard 2A6/A7, British Challenger 2/2E, & French Leclerc.
SilentEagles 1 week ago
How this shit can be better than a leopard 2
MrHunterkiller66 2 weeks ago 16
@MrHunterkiller66
Leopard 2 never seen in action. The Top 10 video only talk about the best tank that seen action in war. They are not talking about the Top 10 modern tank of today.
SilentEagles 1 week ago
@MrHunterkiller66 American show, it aint better
isthisright1 1 week ago
@MrHunterkiller66 leaopard 2 doesnt have anywhere near the power to weight ratio..armour standards..or enough produced..
camelterrorist 1 week ago
@MrHunterkiller66 It isn't. This U.S propaganda. And this tank isn't "shit"
NatedogJr 1 week ago
@MrHunterkiller66 Because it is.
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
@gameragodzilla
180 challengers were deployed to the gulf war 0 loss. ratio = 180:0
on all 180 challengers none was destroyed
1,848 M1Abrams were deployed to the gulf war 23 losses. ratio = 1848:23 = 80:1
for every 80 M1Abrams 1 was destroyed
leopard2, Challenger, T-90 > M1Abrams
yes even T-90 is better watch?v=kAofuApy5sc
Abrams is not the best tank but because of American crap propaganda and being the tank of a country that loves going to war it became good.
and btw Abrams is 75% German tech.
tops1028 2 weeks ago
@tops1028 Your facts are a bit misleading my friend.
Of the 23 lost in the Gulf War, 7 were the result of friendly fire, not actual hostilities, and 2 more were self-destructed in order to prevent capture by the enemy. In addition to that, the Abrams destroyed 3,000 enemy vehicles.
GreyWolfLeaderTW 2 weeks ago
@tops1028 Your records don't mention the fact that only 14 Abrams were lost in comparison to 3,000 enemy vehicles. A kill rate of 214 vehicles to 1 Abrams is nothing to sneeze at. By comparison, the T-90 has never seen combat, and the Challenger is rarely used.
GreyWolfLeaderTW 2 weeks ago
One Abrams would be like giving Chuck Norris a pistol.
Is it just me or does that tickle you?
youngsoldeir918 2 weeks ago
well if some other country made the show they would put their tanks at the top of the list too...
mrsupaflymoosie 4 weeks ago
this is clearly not the best tank in the world today since the challenger is clearly better...crap american logic says the abrams is better because its on an american show...total bias and therefore not to be trusted
empdraco 4 weeks ago
@empdraco, says who? How is the Challenger better?
AstroWaldo 3 weeks ago
@AstroWaldo first off the challenger has the record for the longest range tank kill, second the challenger also has gun stabilization, thirdly jet engines are less reliable and use more fuel than conventional engines which can be just as powerful and finally the challenger's armor is an enhanced version of chobham armor which is superior to the version the abrams uses, that's why its better.
empdraco 1 week ago
Comment removed
gameragodzilla 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
gameragodzilla 3 weeks ago
@empdraco How is the Challenger better? The Abrams has a better gun (fin-stabilized rounds are just as accurate as rifled rounds, and you can fire a wider variety), better targeting system (auto-stabilizing gun allows for fire on the move over rough terrain), better engine (it guzzles gas, but works quieter, more reliably, and faster, plus US logistics ensure gas shortage isn't a problem), and better armor (it's the same Chobham armor, but reinforced with depleted uranium)
gameragodzilla 3 weeks ago
The only reason why more Abrams were lost than Challengers is that there are far more Abrams deployed than Challengers, meaning there is a higher likelyhood of the enemy getting lucky on an Abrams than a Challenger. If there were 5000 Challenger IIs deployed instead of only a few hundred, losses will dial up accordingly. Plus, the numbers also work in the Abrams favor, as the Abrams contributes the most out of all the tanks it fought with, making it the gold standard of tanks.
gameragodzilla 3 weeks ago 12
@gameragodzilla if less Challengers are being deployed it means more fire will be opened to which means the losses will be more massive.....your logic sucks
xXMrGamePlayerXx 2 weeks ago
@xXMrGamePlayerXx
Your logic sucks. If there are more Abrams, that means you are more likely to aim at an Abrams. 778777778777777877777 It's much easier to see the 7's than it is to see the 8's. Same thing for Abrams and the Challengers.
TheYamsinacan 2 weeks ago
@TheYamsinacan you're an idiot...
xXMrGamePlayerXx 2 weeks ago
@xXMrGamePlayerXx WTF are you saying? More fire will be opened? It's kind of hard to suffer any kind of damage of the enemy never sees you. As TheYamsinacan stated, you are more likely to see an Abrams than a Challenger, just like you are more likely to see 7s than 8s.
gameragodzilla 2 weeks ago
To put this point in perspective, let's say we need to assault an enemy position with a group of infantry guys. We have 100 guys wielding assault rifles and 1 guy wielding a pistol. Every person has the same amount of skill After the battle, we lost 10 guys with assault rifles, but the 1 guy wielding a pistol is still alive. Does that mean pistol > Assault rifle? No, it doesn't. Same thing with the Abrams vs the Challenger.
You're an idiot...
gameragodzilla 2 weeks ago
@gameragodzilla what the hell do you mean "doesnt see you" ?
xXMrGamePlayerXx 2 weeks ago
@xXMrGamePlayerXx It means that you are not likely to die if you don't come in contact with the enemy, and you are less likely to die if your enemy mostly concentrates their ordnance and power onto another tank. Therefore, the whole "no challengers were lost" is a classic example of twisting the stats, or, as Mark Twain put it, made up of "lies, damn lies, and statistics"
gameragodzilla 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gameragodzilla exactly because "and you are less likely to die if your enemy mostly concentrates their ordnance and power onto another tank" the sending fewer tanks is more dangerous.....
xXMrGamePlayerXx 2 weeks ago
@gameragodzilla 5000 Challenger tanks!?!?!? *drools*
OutdoorSurvivalist1 1 week ago
@gameragodzilla There have been many accounts of Challengers and Abrams taking the same punishment yet the Abram has fallen. Face it, the challenger 2 possesses better armour.
pnelad14 1 week ago
@pnelad14 Like when? Abrams and Challengers can both take on tank fire and rpgs. The biggest problem facing at least the Abrams tank is roadside IEDs which can be pretty powerful AND also hits at the underbelly of the tank. Has a Challenger survived that? If no, then there is nothing the Challenger survived that the Abrams didn't survive, either. After all, they use similar armor.
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
@gameragodzilla "The Challenger 2 remained in Iraq until roughly 2009. For a number of years it operated at Squadron strength, which is just 14 vehicles. Many claim that as there were less Challenger 2’s than the US Abrams series deployed to Iraq, the Abrams would therefore take greater losses.
pnelad14 1 week ago
@pnelad14 After the invasion and during the "occupation" or Iraq, 14 Challenger 2’s and the CRARRV were out working almost every night and therefore were in greater demand than their Abrams cousin, which meant these Challenger 2 were still attacked regularly. Sadly 5% of the Abrams deployed were returned to the US as either heavily damaged or destroyed during this period."
pnelad14 1 week ago
@gameragodzilla The Challenger 2 had no losses, despite being attacked every night by the same enemy, with the same weapons. To say that British Forces did not receive the same intense level of attack, though on a smaller scale, is seen by British Forces as an insult. So please, do some research. And if you wish to argue with the sources, argue against Tanknut Dave. Do I win? :P
pnelad14 1 week ago
@pnelad14 Abrams are also attacked every night. My point is that while individual Challys and Abrams can, and DO, encounter the same amount of resistance, the fact remains that there are more Abrams IN TOTAL to experience continued resistance, thus allowing the enemy to get lucky in a few percentage of cases.
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
@pnelad14 Abrams are also attacked every night. My point is that while individual Challys and Abrams can, and DO, encounter the same amount of resistance, the fact remains that there are more Abrams IN TOTAL to experience continued resistance. That means that it is far more likely for the enemy to encounter an Abrams than a Chally during combat, and there are instances where the enemy gets lucky, and since you encounter Abrams more often, you are more likely to get lucky with an Abrams
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
It's like my assault team analogy I posted earlier. I have 100 guys with assault rifles and 1 guy with a pistol assault an enemy position. The enemy consists of a bunch of poorly trained n00bs, but they still fight ferociously. Both the riflemen and the one guy with a pistol encounter the same amount of resistance and have the same amount of skill. In the process, I lose 10 riflemen, but the pistol guy is still alive. Does that mean pistol > Assault rifle? No. Same thing here.
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
@pnelad14 btw, Tank Nut Dave is a great website, but the team that compiles this stuff is British. Every person says their country's tank is the best. The Americans think the Abrams is the best. The Russians say it's the T-90. The Germans the Leopard 2. The Israelis the Merkava. The Chinese the Type 99. The Brits the Challenger 2. In any objective sense, all these tanks are equal. We only support one tank over the other due to our affinity with the country of origin.
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
@gameragodzilla No...I'm not resorting to circular reasoning. I'm looking at the statistics and comparing them. The CR2 possesses a rifled gun meaning it can fire at greater distances while retaining accuracy compared to the Leopard 2 and the M1A2 Abram. Statistically, the CR2 has been shown to provide greater protection than the M1A2 Abram...But this is no surprise due to its Dorchester armour. Overall the facts are in favour of the CR2, that is why I label it as the best tank.
pnelad14 1 week ago
@pnelad14 Just because it's more accurate doesn't mean that the Abrams and Leo can't hit the broad side of a barn. All 3 tanks are perfectly capable of hitting any practical distance, meaning that there are only a few specific circumstances where the extreme accuracy of a rifled barrel is needed. Granted, it's an interesting niche, but it's not the end all solution. Plus, rifled barrels reduce the types of ammunition that can be fired, which can be annoying when NATO standards include
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
many weapons that would wear out a rifled barrel very quickly. Now, how has the Chally ever had statistically greater protection? Name me one instance where the Chally survived something that an Abrams didn't. Granted, were some Abrams lost? You bet. However, those situations are highly unique and it is unlikely that the Chally would've done much better in a similar situation. Armor for both tanks is similar. Chally has 2nd gen Chobham, Abrams has Depleted Uranium plates.
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
@gameragodzilla You're missing the point. If they were (for what ever reason) to enagage in 1 v1 the CR2 possesses a higher probability of winning, if we look at the facts. The CR2 possesses better range....WHICH means it can throw a punch at an Abram but the Abram can't throw one back. The CR2 has better armour as it is 1 up from Chobham, it has also took the same punishment an m1 Abram has...Yet the Abram fell and the CR2 didn't. The evidence speaks for it self.
pnelad14 1 week ago
@pnelad14 It is highly unlikely any sort of tank battle will take place in those kind of ranges. Just like sniper rifles, even though they can shoot over 1 mile, the vast majority of sniping missions occur at much less distances. Besides, the Abrams is much faster than the Challenger, and can easily close that gap. Then, it's basically a slugfest. It's likely that the Abrams will have a slight advantage due to the fact that the primary round the rifled barrel fires, the HESH round, can
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
be defeated by modern ERA (in fact, that's the reason why every single other country switched from HESH to other types of rounds besides Britain). Chobham armor, especially with Depleted Uranium, will resist it even better. The Abrams originally had a rifled gun, but the Americans upgraded to a smoothbore, because there are far more options to fire in a smoothbore, and it is still accurate for any practical purpose. The HESH round's more suited for bunker busting, not tank battle
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
@gameragodzilla Then the CR2 will likely be saved due to its Dorchester armour....By the way the Gun the CR2 possesses is not only better at ranges, but is stronger than the Abram's gun which means the CR2 will have a greater chance of penetrating the Abram. All though the Abram's mobility is good it will account for little at close ranges.
pnelad14 6 days ago
@pnelad14 A Challenger 2 was destroyed by another Challenger 2 in a blue on blue incident, while a stricken Abrams that the Army decided was too much work to lug back home and decided to destroy on site took multiple rounds before a penetration occurred, which didn't even do much damage due to the blow-out panels installed. That's with the famed "Silver bullet" round that is much more powerful than HESH rounds (which has issue with ERA).
gameragodzilla 6 days ago
The rifled round is NOT stronger. The only advantage it has is that it has greater range, and its DISADVANTAGE is the fact that it's less powerful, because the reason every other country but Britain stopped using HESH rounds (which require a rifled gun) is because it doesn't do very well against Explosive Reactive Armor, which is still inferior to Chobham.
Plus, the fire control system for the M1A2 is better, so it'll be better at close range.
gameragodzilla 6 days ago
@gameragodzilla You're clutching at straws. The only reason the CR2 was destroyed was due to the HESH round hitting the OPEN hatch of the CR2 enabling the ammuntion to be subjected to the hot fragments of the round. Please do more reseach next time. Like it or not, but the ERA at the side of the Abram is a one trick pony. It WILL eventually leave the tank vulnerable. In additon you make a valid point about the rifle gun. But you're forgetting one thing, THEY ARE DIFFERENT (cont)
pnelad14 5 days ago
@pnelad14 Still, the fact that ERA (which is inferior to DU reinforced Chobham) can still defeat HESH rounds means that even if the Challenger got the first shot, there would be very minimal damage. Plus, due to the way each gun is structured, the Abrams can fire faster than the Chally. In fact, ERA is the main reason everyone else isn't using HESH anymore, because Chinese and Russian tanks all use it, both of which are likely adversaries.
gameragodzilla 5 days ago
@gameragodzilla GUNS. The Abram uses a "L44 120mm smoothbore (as used by the German Leopard 2 series)" . The CR2 uses a calibre Length 55. The L55 is more powerful. So please, do some more research. The fire control system won't account for much at close range...At close ranges....It's just point and shoot. Providing the Abram can get close enough. My sources by the way were the official MOD reports of the Destroyed CR2 which TND provided.
pnelad14 5 days ago
@pnelad14 The thing is, the CR2 doesn't use the "Silver bullet" round that the Americans use. Sure, the Leopard will be stronger as it can fire that round from a longer barrel, but the rifled gun cannot fire that type of round without wearing out the barrel very very quickly. Plus, fire control systems are very important, as it allows the gunner to fire basically on the move. Not to mention the fact that close range for tanks is still a long distance for manual aiming.
gameragodzilla 5 days ago
@gameragodzilla OK...The CR2 would likely use the SABOT round...As it is believed that CHOBHAM armour is more effective against heat than kinetic energy. The point you've made about rifled gun are valid...But the L30 (the CR2 uses) has been reported to use technology which doesn't wear down the barrel quickly. Wearing down wouldn't be a concern in a 1v1 anyway as the CR2 can be claimed to fire about 650 times before the gun is rendered worn out. Even though the Abram can --
pnelad14 4 days ago
@pnelad14 Until you can give me a source on the fact that the L30 has technology to reduce wear, I will remain skeptical. After all, considering how closely NATO countries work together (the Abrams has British armor and German gun), I would be surprised if the British didn't share this knowledge. Of course, it is true that it wouldn't be a concern in 1v1, but nevertheless, the Abrams still has much more options to fire.
gameragodzilla 3 days ago
@gameragodzilla The 120mm L30 cannon is made from Electro Slag Re-melting steel (ESR) to lengthen the cannons life and increase its accuracy.
pnelad14 3 days ago
@pnelad14 And clearly doesn't work all that great considering no one else is using it. And it's not like other NATO allies won't use it. After all, the Abrams is using British designed Chobham armor, and is using a German designed L44 main gun, so it's not like the US has too big of an ego to use a foreign designed weapon.
gameragodzilla 2 days ago
@gameragodzilla That's not even going into the fact that the CR2 doesn't use APFSDS rounds that people are worried about to cause wearing in the first place, so if you reinforced the barrel to fire rounds that were designed for that particular barrel, you shouldn't brag about it. When you prove to me that the rifled barrel can fire ALL types of rounds, THAT'S when I'll agree that a rifled gun is better. There's a reason no one else is using them.
gameragodzilla 2 days ago
@gameragodzilla To quote one British CR2 crewman " Thanks to the quality of the L30, the old issue of wearing down of the rifling through repeated firing is almost non-existent. On average we fire 450+ rounds a year on active vehicles during training exercises and we averaged 200 during Operation Telic 1. In all my years of service, I've never known an L30 to be replaced due to wearing of the rifling ".
pnelad14 3 days ago
@gameragodzilla Fire faster than the CR2 it is a significant time...They are quite on par IIRC. However like it or not...The CR2 can take more of a punishment than an Abram. Also the thing about the fire control...We need to actually have a distance because point blank range IIRC is 50 yards....At that sort of distance....It is NOT needed, but it is still nice to have...
pnelad14 4 days ago
@pnelad14 Now yes, I would agree with you that they would be equal. Even at the ranges I am referring to, the winner will be the tank with the better crew. I believe that all Western tank designs are more or less equal, differing only in slight aspects because they emphasize different niches. The Abrams has better mobility and fire control. The Chally is much more accurate and very heavily armored, and the Leo has a much stronger main gun. Still, none are any tank I want to go against.
gameragodzilla 3 days ago
@gameragodzilla Of course they are essentially equal...But in a 1v1, I believe it's the CR2 protection and firepower which makes it the most effective. The true weakness is that CR2 have not been massed produced, meaning that if the CR2 was versing quality such as the Abram on mass scale...It would encounter much difficulty.
pnelad14 3 days ago
@pnelad14 The protection and firepower, we established, is pretty much the same. The Chally has 2nd gen Chobham, and the Abrams has DU-reinforced 1st gen Chobham, both of which are extremely tough. We also established that the firepower for both is similar in terms of power, considering the waning of HESH rounds due to advancements in ERA and the existence of APFSDS for the Abrams would equalize the longer barrel of the Chally. Thus, these tanks are pretty much equal, even in 1v1 fight
gameragodzilla 2 days ago
As I have said, the only advantages one has over the other is the much greater accuracy given by the rifled gun for the Chally, and the superior fire control system for the Abrams that takes into account everything from the weather to the bend of the barrel. Either way, neither trait will provide a significant advantage over the other, thus concluding that even in a 1v1 fight, both tanks have an equal chance of winning, and the winner is, thus, the one with the better crew.
gameragodzilla 2 days ago
@gameragodzilla But that's the point, I have established through statistics that its protection is better. I believe the gun is better as the cr2 can engage from a distance, like it or not but your Abram will be putting it self at grave danger when trying to get into range of the CR2. OF COUSRE it depends on the crew, but when it comes statistics...You can't deny they support the CR2 more.
pnelad14 2 days ago
@pnelad14 The main thing is, it isn't better.Everything the Chally survived, the Abrams has, as well. Tank rounds, even from other Abrams, bounce off the armor of the tank. Plus, we already established that the distance between the two wouldn't be that great, as you're the one who claimed that the superior fire control system of the Abrams wouldn't really matter. Thus, both these advantages have been negated by the parameters we've established, meaning that the stats support neither.
gameragodzilla 2 days ago
Therefore, if we were to go by simple advantages, that means that the Chally would have an advantage at extremely long ranges, but that requires an extremely accurate gunner. The Abrams much superior mobility will allow it to get in range, and thus giving the advantage to the Abrams with the superior fire control system. Go any closer, and manual aiming is fine for both, meaning that the winner depends on how far each tank is from each other, with the most common distance in tank
gameragodzilla 2 days ago
warfare favoring neither, as both fire control systems and accuracy are perfectly adequate for the situation at hand. Thus, the eventual battle will be a simple slugfest as neither side does serious damage to the absurdly strong armor of both, until one side gets a lucky or skilled shot that hits a very vulnerable area. Either way, it depends more on luck and skill of the crew than the person merits of the tank at hand.
gameragodzilla 2 days ago
@gameragodzilla You're not paying heed....Nor using sense...The CR2 would do everything in its power to stay out of the reach of the Abram. And your point about everything the CR2 has survived so has the Abram is blatant ignorance. Blacktaildefence has many video showing the Abram being penetrated by a RPG-7 in the side armour! The CR2 got hit by 70 of them...Had to disengage and was repaired in under 6 hours. In operation Iraqi freedom a handful of Abrams were lost....Not 1 CR2-
pnelad14 1 day ago
@pnelad14 How would the CR2 get out of the Abrams' reach? It's already very underpowered compared to its counterparts, and the Abrams mobility is much better. Blacktaildefense is complete BS. I looked at all of his information, and all of it was from outdated speculation articles from before the Gulf War. The only Abrams that were ever destroyed were from either friendly fire or really powerful IEDs. Most actually had reparable damage, but were simply scuttled because it was determined
gameragodzilla 1 day ago
that lugging it back to get it repaired was too much work (and even scuttling can take some time due to the absurd armor). And I have already showed you that the sole reason no Challys were lost was because Challys arent' encountered in large enough numbers for the enemy to score a lucky hit. Please read my 1 guy with a pistol and 100 guys with assault rifles analogy. Just because the guy with the pistol lived doesn't mean that the pistol is superior to the assault rifle.
gameragodzilla 1 day ago
@gameragodzilla You make so many idiotic points...If a CR2 was to go against the Abrams it would not deploy IN RANGE You're mobility is not greatly better....You do not know what you're talking about. You obviously didn't watch the chapter about protection...As you'd be aware of DU infact the mention of that kind of contradicts what you said. Abrams have been destroyed on many occasions...Again you're not paying heed. THERE ARE sources saying the CR2 was used more than the ABRAM
pnelad14 6 hours ago
@pnelad14 And I have already said that it is highly unlikely for a Chally to hit that range. Just because it CAN doesn't mean it will. It was a record shot Most engagements for both tanks happen, AT FURTHEST, at 4 km, which is in range for the Abrams' fire control system to work. Abrams have been damaged before, and it was determined that it was too much work to lug back, so it was destroyed on site. I have seen so called "destroyed Abrams" before, and all of them were scuttled tanks.
gameragodzilla 2 hours ago
@pnelad14 I think 70 RPG's is just a random number you plucked from your mind. It was 14 RPG-7's and one MILAN rocket.
MyJimmyMonster 14 hours ago
@MyJimmyMonster "Apaches are not heavily armoured and it takes just one rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) to bring one down. Compare that with one British Challenger near Basra which survived being hit by 70 RPGs."
pnelad14 6 hours ago
@MyJimmyMonster That's from the BBC news...Google Challenger 2 hit by 70 RPGs.
pnelad14 6 hours ago
@pnelad14 I still don't trust it. After 70 hits from RPG's, or any late 20th century anti-tank weapon, the armour on any tank would eventually cripple.
MyJimmyMonster 4 hours ago
@gameragodzilla Fell. There was numerous sources saying the CR2 received everything the Abrams did. So you're making things up. The fire control system in CC is going to be useless...But do you really think a CR2 which can fire at longer distances would let an Abram get to it..? That is SILLY...
pnelad14 1 day ago
@pnelad14 The RPG-7 thing was already proven to be from an untrustworthy source (that guy seems to have a grudge against American military equipment. It's probably a Russian nationalist), and it wouldn't make much sense considering the Abrams has survived much worse (tank rounds), thus, there is nothing a Chally has survived that an Abrams has also survived. Finally, it is highly unlikely a Chally would be able to stay in that range for long. In order to hit anything at that range, it
gameragodzilla 1 day ago
requires that both targets are standing perfectly still on a completely flat terrain with the target doing nothing to depend itself (as was the case when the Challenger scored that record hit). In the chaos of war, hitting anything at that range would be next to impossible, especially with the mobility of the Abrams, thus forcing any battle to occur at ranges where the superior fire control system of the Abrams will be within range. Hitting a moving target at several km is SILLY.
gameragodzilla 1 day ago
@gameragodzilla Hitting a moving target moving towards you s not as silly as it seems.
pnelad14 6 hours ago
@pnelad14 If you have a very good fire control system. However, such system does not work at the extreme ranges you're talking about, meaning it's manual aiming only. Hitting ANYTHING manually is very hard, especially if a target is moving. I'm sorry, but this statement is what truly destroys any sort of credibility you have. Unless the gunner of the Chally was an eagle-eyed God, he won't be able to hit a moving target manually. By the time he can hit, the Abrams is in range.
gameragodzilla 2 hours ago
@gameragodzilla I just fail to see how you can not say the CR2 is a better tank. I'll put simply. Tanks are based on 3 key features: Firepower, mobility and protection. The CR2 has shown its self to be better than the Abram at protection. You argue it was due to the fact it had smaller numbers...Yet if anything it was in use more than the Abrams. Source TND. Firepower...The CR2 has a better gun as it can strike at longer distances, the l55 is stronger than the L44. Mobilty-M1wins
pnelad14 6 hours ago
@pnelad14 The Chally is more accurate in firepower, but lacks in punch. Even with the increased barrel, HESH rounds cannot match DU-APFSDS rounds (proven by the fact that HESH can be defeated by ERA, but DU-APFSDS can defeat ERA). Mobility is much better than the Chally (at the cost of fuel efficiency). The armor is equal in both. Stop reciting BS you found on some Russian nationalist's ranting and get some real facts. DU-reinforced armor is very good. Thus, Chally isn't better.
gameragodzilla 2 hours ago
Thus, it can be concluded that the only real advantage the Chally has is long range accuracy. The only real advantage the Abrams has is superior fire control system. At ranges where tank battles typically happen, neither will really matter, as both will be accurate enough to hit each other. Both armor is top of the line, and both firepower is extreme. Thus, the only tank to win will be the one with the better crew. Stop acting like a stupid Chally salesman and accept the facts.
gameragodzilla 2 hours ago
@gameragodzilla @gameragodzilla Received the same amount of damage. You call BTD a untrustworthy source...OK...We'll ignore his vids... google history of Abrams tank on wiki, it disproves what you said.....And it would make sense because the ABRAMS HAS ERA ON ITS SIDES Where IT WAS STRUCK....you didn't watch it.
pnelad14 6 hours ago
@pnelad14 I google the history of the Abrams all the time. It's a hobby. Nobody except diehard American haters have anything but praise for the Depleted Uranium reinforced armor. The whole "it can't take a single RPG" is a constantly debunked piece of BS on any tank enthusiast forum. The fact of the matter is, many people even put the Abrams ahead due to the use of Depleted Uranium. I just happen to rate 2nd gen Chobham as similar in strength. NOT superior, however.
gameragodzilla 2 hours ago
@gameragodzilla first off anyone who knows about ballistics know that spin stabilization is better, why do you think the challenger has the record for the longest range tank kill, second don't you think the rest of the world has caught on to gun stabilization by now, this should be obvious, thirdly jet engines are less reliable and use more fuel as you said yourself and finally it is not the same chobham armor, the challenger's is an enhanced version, that's why its better.
empdraco 1 week ago
@empdraco Just because it's better doesn't mean smoothbore is crap. Smoothbore is accurate for every practical purpose, AND it can fire a larger variety of rounds (many types of rounds would very quickly wear out a rifled barrel). Also, the Abrams DOES have gun stabilization, which makes this point moot. Third, jet engines are much more reliable and much quieter, so stop talking outta your ass. The only disadvantage is the fuel consumption, and it clearly isn't a real problem as the
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
one thing the US is good at is logistics (shipping stuff from point A to point B), which is why the US can operate 10X more Abrams than the British operate Challys with more fuel per tank, and yet, still not have every tank turn into fuel-deprived bunkers. Finally, Abrams tanks use Depleted Uranium armor plates, which is even tougher than the so-called "enhanced" armor, as it is Chobham armor with the toughest plating currently available.
You clearly know nothing about tanks.
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
Forgot! I have decided to include the horsepower per tonne specs for the Challenger 2 and the M1 Abrams. The Challenger 2 has 19.2 h/t. The Abrams has 24.5 h/t. The 2 tanks weigh the exact same. This gives the Chally 2 a max speed of 25 mph off road, and the Abrams 30 mph off road (and that is with the engine governor placed on the engine to PREVENT THE TANK FROM GOING SO FAST THAT IT DAMAGES THE TRACKS).
Abrams has the better engine (1200hp for Chally 2 vs 1500hp for Abrams).
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
@gameragodzilla first off the challenger can fire HESH shells which the abrams can't because it's smoothbored, second i didn't say the abrams didn't have gun stabilization, wake up I was saying the challenger has it too, thirdly every tank up to the abrams and even tanks since it have been built with conventional engines and in the case of the challenger and the leopard they are just as if not more reliable and more efficient, you think I'm talking out my ass try me punk
empdraco 1 week ago
@empdraco HESH rounds are becoming useless with the prevalence of Explosive Reactive Armor that our potential enemies now use. Plus, HESH can't penetrate Chobham armor, either. Chemical energy weapons are the future. That's why every other country is using smoothbore, and the Brits are considering using the German L55 SMOOTHEBORE gun as an upgrade. The reason the Chally and Leo use "conventional" engines is because they can't afford to blow all the huge amount of cash the US uses to
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
buy and transport fuel. Like I said, the one disadvantage a jet engine has is the fact that it is a compete fuel hog, which is the reason why only the US can afford it, with our huge defense budget and logistic ability. We're not stupid. If a jet engine really is no better than diesel, we would've went with a diesel engine. The jet engine is much quieter and moves more reliably. That's why the US uses it. Diesel is for people who can't afford a fuel hog, which is NOT the US.
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
@gameragodzilla do you even know what a HESH round is, it is chemical energy, its used to cause splintering and fragmenting of armor on the inside of a tank by creating shock waves, besides the challenger can fire heat rounds too, so its not as limited as you seem to think, furthermore, as you said conventional engines are less expensive, so letts tally it up, hust as reliable if not more so than a jet engine, more fuel efficient and more cost effecive, sounds like a win to me
empdraco 1 week ago
@empdraco It's kinetic (High Energy Squash Head). Your description fills the kinetic definition. Now yes, it's not as limited as I think, and I think the rifled barrel fills a very interesting niche (basically, it's a sniper tank), but that does not mean it is better than the Abrams (which has more options). Conventional engines are less expensive in terms of fuel use, so yeah, a Chally 2 would be cheaper. The Abrams has better mobility, though, as I have shown.
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
Personally, if you ask me, each of these tanks are great tanks and on par with each other. Sure, there are a few advantages one has over the other (chally 2 being longer ranged, the Abrams having better mobility), but overall, I'd say that they're the same in terms of combat effectiveness. The only reason why I rank the Abrams higher is simply because there are more of them. In a 1v1 fight, it would be completely equal.
I still envy the installed stove on the Chally, though
gameragodzilla 1 week ago
@gameragodzilla I knew you didn't know, it's High Explosive Spuash Head, it uses a thin nose cap and an explosive core to conform to the armor it strikes and then detonates to create the shock wave, its gun is just as capable in terms of filling a multiplicity of roles, its no niche weapon, it's just better, conventional engines are physically less expensive and while maybe a little slower it makes up for it with better armor, 4 abrams were lost in desert storm, no challys were
empdraco 1 week ago
Do you know why the Abrams won that battle and only 4 got destroyed and they killed 3000 of Sadamm's tanks? Because the tanks that former USSR supplied to his army were watered down and pure shitty tanks. Sadamm's tanks had shitty knock off armor and the ammunition that was supplied to them were training rounds and not actual HE rounds. Sadamm got duped by the Russians into thinking he bought the real deal.
1992Xenomorph 4 weeks ago
@1992Xenomorph, actually a lot of those tanks were versions that the Iraqi's copied from Soviet style tanks, so most of the tanks and ammo aren't that old. But you have to remember they did have modern ATGM, attack helicopters and jets which the tanks faced.
AstroWaldo 3 weeks ago
why this is not number one becaue made in US and this is probably a US program!? stupid just stupid again! i think that this tank is so heavy that it might get stuck on the forest or on the mud or other places or even sink like in the river! too heavey and too big, maybe and too drunk tank! "fat girl"! i mean that it use too much about diesel or petrol or gasoline what ever it drinks! and is that gun so good! and i think that MERKAVA and LEOPARD and CHALLENGER and T95 are better than ABRAM!
WHITECHILD2 4 weeks ago
the Abrams has a good production rate, we have been able to produce 9000 plus of them and are starting on a new variant in 2013.
ckkabramz 1 month ago
I was surprised not to see a T90 in this list taking into account the massive fear factor it has in Battlefield 3 :P
OMGitsSCHNUCKUMS 1 month ago
best my ass. Leopard 2 can take this. stronger engine, more accurate gun.
zard1214 1 month ago
The technical specifications of the Abrams do not tell the whole story. The real difference is made in crew quality and American tank crews have the decided edge over their counterparts in other countries. This is due to two factors: Combat experience in two wars since 1990, and much better training, most notably at the National Training Center.
ARepublicanVictory 1 month ago
Looking purely at combat performance, the Abrams is the best tank. It has a variant of Chobham/Burlington armor. But in the case of the Abrams it is improved with a layer of steel encased depleted uranium (DU). The radioactivity of DU is harmless. It is a very dense material which gives a lot of extra protection against kinetic energy (sabot) projectiles.
ARepublicanVictory 1 month ago
USA !
USA !
USA !
SUCK OUR DICKS CUZ WE'RE THE USA!
kpcpcpc 1 month ago
I see lots of hate here.
I agree that as a tank itself, the M1 should not be #2. But the original video states in the beginning, before starting with #10, that this programme rates tanks based on what they did, not what they are truly capable of. Unfortunate, but yeah, this is the wisdom of Military Channel. *shrugs*
After all, guess what made #1? That's how this show rates tanks.
ricojes 1 month ago
@ricojes It is called jealousy.
ARepublicanVictory 1 month ago
this is bullshit challeger is a better tank and tank a russian t 90 got hit by chechens 7 times anti tank rockets and drive off dont believe this as this is bullshit
valmalakhov 1 month ago
Oh and 18 gallons to start your engine, 18 gallons, are you kidding me? That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard
BeamMeUpScotty245 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
German gun, British Armour, slower than Challenger 2 off road, stupid jet turbine that infantry can't take cover behind, #2 my ass
BeamMeUpScotty245 1 month ago 5
@BeamMeUpScotty24, the Abrams 120mm gun is American, they just got rights from the original German manufacturer, Chobham armor was created by the US. Your ass aint nothing.
AstroWaldo 1 month ago
@AstroWaldo Idiot. Abrams uses an obsolete german gun, Leo 2A6 has a much better gun, take your american piece of shit and stuff it up ur ass
shadowdancerRFW 1 month ago
@shadowdancerRFW Stick to playing your video games. It is the closest you will ever come to being an expert on anything modern and sophisticated bitch. This tank is the top modern tank for a reason. Next time, shut the fuck up and pay attention to what the narrator is saying. Or can you pay attention bitch? I understand you little kids have a had time paying attention these days.
ARepublicanVictory 1 month ago
@ARepublicanVictory When are you gonna learn that nothing your stupid US says is true. I bet you're one of those idiots who still think 9/11 was a terrorist hit.
It is a known fact the gun is based on the old L44 rheinmetal gun, I have facts you have a load of bullshit. Grow up kid and open your eyes.
shadowdancerRFW 1 month ago
@shadowdancerRFW also teh chobham armour is british made so it wouldnt be nearly as tough if it wasnt for that its a very good tank but relys on to many countries to make it good
crisisgear 1 month ago
@shadowdancerRFW
You people that claim 9/11 was an inside job are as fucktarded as those that claim the US never went to the moon.
EvilxMerlin 1 month ago
@EvilxMerlin Point 1 : The sky-scrappers are specially designed to survive ANY air collision. No way a simple civilian plane would scratch it.
Point 2 : Which is obvious even for those with IQ of 50 (among which you don't register). IF, and I greatly stress IF, the plane could knock out the building, then the building itself should have been ripped in half, with the superior half falling. But those buildings feel downwards, just like they do when are demolished. GAME. SET. MATCH
shadowdancerRFW 1 month ago
@shadowdancerRFW
No, the twin towers were built to withstand collisions with 707's and the fuel they used, not a modern airline. Two different things. GAME.
You also don't have an understanding of stacking collsions. SET
You also don't understand highspeed collisions. MATCH.
EvilxMerlin 1 month ago
@EvilxMerlin You are truly the most stupid person I met on youtube.
What part can't you understand from an aluminium alloy plane CAN'T possibly penetrate super heavy steel building ? IDIOT
And I noticed you didn't say anything about the way the buildings fell. Can't explain it ?
Go back and kiss your gov's ass, like all american idiots do, and continue believing their propaganda, just like you believe this video.
This conversation is over.
shadowdancerRFW 1 month ago
@EvilxMerlin Americans obviously can't make good enough diesel engine like Germans at this point. Operational range is unbelievably pathetic, even the speed is behind german tank. leopard 2's top speed is 45mph, m1a2 is 42mph. M1A2 has thicker armor but Leopard 2 has enough armor to stand M1A2's L44.
zard1214 1 month ago
@zard1214
Actually the M1A2's top speed is GOVERNED to 42mph, but can and has done over 60mph. The L44 is just the cannon, once again you fail to understand basic tanking. As a gun is only one part of the equation. M829E4 can easily defeat ANY tanks armour today, including the Russian Kontakt-5 which is superior to the Leopards armour. Operational range on the M1A2SEP is over 250 miles. Tank range isn't everything in today's world. But you already know that.
EvilxMerlin 1 month ago
@EvilxMerlin Germany is not some mediocre mid east country who can't build their own tank. Germany has one of the most advanced automobile technology. Americans think they are best at everything when they are not and you are the perfect example. I can agree with #1 in aerospace but not in machinery. tank range is definitely something because shorter operational range means more constant supplies and makes supply lines more vulnerable.
zard1214 1 month ago
@zard1214
Um, I NEVER short changed Germany at all. I'm quite sure of what they can and cannot do. I was stationed there for almost 6 years.
EvilxMerlin 1 month ago
@EvilxMerlin If it comes head to head, German armor and American armor doesn't make any difference because both side are capable of taking one out with same amount of ammo. Germans get edge because they have few more advantages like accuracy and operational range.
zard1214 1 month ago
@zard1214
Actually the American weapons have the accuracy and range. Again, you are focusing on just the gun, and not the ammo. the M829E4 changes quite few things.
EvilxMerlin 1 month ago
@EvilxMerlin and again you are trying to deny a simple logic. longer barrel=better accuracy. Germany is not some 3rd world country who can't build their own gun. even for ammo, I'm pretty sure Germany has their own ammo which is also very accurate. I'm only focusing on a gun because that will be the one that makes difference since both are made by very advanced technology that it will come down to a small difference like that. I can respect M1 but I don't see it better than Leopard 2.
zard1214 1 month ago
@zard1214
No, its not so simple, with rocket shells, longer barrels mean less and less. No country has ammo YET similar to the 828E4. The German's current most advanced round is the DM12A1. And this doesn't even touch on the XM1111 which is currently just being fielded now.
EvilxMerlin 1 month ago
The operational range is only 250 miles if the tank travels very fast. The turbine engine consumes more fuel the slower it is moving. An idling Abrams will empty its fuel tank in 8 hours! An MBT often has to make stops or move slowly in support of infantry or something.
TheTokkin 4 weeks ago
@AstroWaldo The armour was created at the British tank research centre at Chobham Common, England. hence why it is called Chobham armour. fucking idiot.
ManicMammoth 2 weeks ago
@BeamMeUpScotty245 YOU ARE ANOTHER USELESS IDIOT WHO DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Learn a thing or two about tanks before you open your stupid fucking mouth idiot. Shut the fuck up and listen to the narrator before you post dumb bullshit.
ARepublicanVictory 1 month ago
@ARepublicanVictory The Abrams is a good tank, granted, it's just that a lot of things about it don't make sense. Take the jet turbine, what is that for? Challenger 2 and Leopard are just as fast if not fast, and use way less fuel. The gun is German, that's a fact, and that armour was invented by a Brit, the Americans modified it sure. Survivability and lethality are equal to other tanks; endurance, and ease of support, both logistical and by infantry, the M1 loses
BeamMeUpScotty245 1 month ago
@BeamMeUpScotty245 I can explain the turbine for ya, several members in congress owned stock in the company that builds said turbine engine.
AtomicHoosier 1 month ago
@BeamMeUpScotty245
The Challenger doesn't have the armour, speed or communications gear that the M1A1's and up have. The Challenger is a good tank, just not to the same level as the M1. The M1 still has better armour than even the L2A6 and in the whole L55 vs. L44 gun, the L44 simply fires more advanced ammo that gives it the edge over the L55. The Leopard is more manuverable, but the M1 is faster.
EvilxMerlin 1 month ago
@EvilxMerlin m1 was a pathetic operational range in relation to the fuel that it consumes. M1 has twice the fuel tank that a leopard 2 has, yet it still has a smaller range. Speed is irrelevant: it is not a meaningful form of protection for an MBT. Mobility and operational range are more important, and leo2 is much better in this regard. leo can also be fitted with drop tanks, further increasing range: abrams cant. furthermore, I have no idea where you get the idea that chal2 is less armored.
TheTokkin 1 month ago
@TheTokkin
Um, speed is irrelevant? Stop with the armchair tank commander stuff, and learn some history. If this is your "claim" you really have no right talking about tanks in any manner at all.
EvilxMerlin 1 month ago
@EvilxMerlin Yes, at least the speed differences in question. Speed is not a meaningful form of protection for an MBT. Mobility is not speed: mobility is the freedom of movement.
TheTokkin 4 weeks ago
@BeamMeUpScotty245
Your criticize US Abrams for borrowing German and UK ideas obviously your stupid! Canada can't built anything mostly borrowing from Germany.
Too Bad Canada can't even built the first GPS made by America. Canada stuff are made by Eskimo. LOL
USAAIRPOWER 1 week ago
@USAAIRPOWER No, I criticise this show for saying, it's the best, but a lot of other tanks have the same capability, with less drawbacks. So we don't build our own tanks, it would be economically retarded to design our own when we only buy about 150 tanks. Are you saying Canadians are stupid? Check the Canadarm you moron, we're as advanced as you, if we weren't why would you take the LAV III design for your Stryker? The assumption that all Canadians are Eskimos just insults your intelligence
BeamMeUpScotty245 1 week ago
Lol the top speed is 42 mph? Maybe when going up a cliff...
NPSurvival 1 month ago
comparing the m1a2 to leapard 2 is unfair the m1a2 is an older tank if the US would make a new generation of mbt it would make the leo 2 look like a mere toy
kill069a 1 month ago
@kill069a Leopard 2 was made in 1979, Abrams were made in 1980. Prototypes, I'm not quite sure.
crossvariation 1 month ago
1place: Leo2
2place T-90
3PlaceM1A2SEPV2(not usually m1a2)
BANNERTM 1 month ago
this is best hahahahahahaahhaha the Leopard 2 will wipe the floor with it and you say its the best tank today and where is the leopard 2 srsly its better then some shit merkus
latkilen1 1 month ago
the challenger and challenger 2 are as deadly as this tank and yet this one gets high fear factor and low production. the challenger also has low production but low fear factor really?
where did the *only 3000 of these were produced* go?
fluidbuffalo 1 month ago
"No compromises were made" - I call Bullshit.
undergod027 1 month ago 2
@clayman891 its just because the leopard hasnt proved itself in battle as much as the others have, its a great tank that hasnt been proven yet.
mikyjackson1 1 month ago
leopard 2 A6 nowhere?! ... fuck this list, complete bullshit.
Clayman891 1 month ago
Leopard 2 <333333333 German Tank Power
Challenger <33333 also good :)
German=British=American tanks beats everything :)
CoDGAMIINGZ 1 month ago
If i know it right, the M1 only fought against tanks like the T-55? What would be happen if he fight against a T-90?
LkwFan91 1 month ago
damn that tank Chugs Diesel, they should work on that big time
AfKman101 1 month ago
I think a T-90 would be able to take down an Abrams, because it has a smaller profile, larger gun, faster, and emits less heat, and also because it's Russian, so theres secrets behind it
ThatTankid 1 month ago
Challenger and Leopard 2 will always triumph in battle, they both have the same armour and design principals, the Abrams just looks like a Leo and Chally put together...
ThatTankid 1 month ago
alotta blind patriotism goin on here :/
BladeXstrike1324 1 month ago