I hate these bullshit arguments over who's tank is better. Almost all modern tanks have similar qualities and all have their set backs. The Abrams, Challenger, Leopard, T-90, etc are all good tanks and it seems the top tank depends on who is doing the test. This dumb argument has to stop because nobody is going to have their mind changed via youtube comments.
"Modern T-72's".... 72 means 1972 ROFL... On top of that shitty export versions of without thermal, night visions, armor etc etc... it was designed between 1967-1972... Cmon now...
US forces get fight against rebels with no using hi-tech weapons, no hi powered armed vehicles, advance jet fighter planes and very trainable armies so how they can won against to them why don't they try to fight against those nation who have the same power like them!?
When a us tank is hit and not movable the other tanks are instructed to take it out of the fight and blow it up so it cant be used by the enemy...there are reports that even knowing where town hit it and using the 120mm cannon on the abrams, us tank crews had trouble destroying it because it is so well armored...god dam the us has a good tank
Thank the maker they did not run into a T-90, LoL T72 that is a 35 year old tank. Us military power has not really been tested since 1983. Give me China vs USA!
@SpankTV I'm Chinese, and I can tell you that the PLA is much worse than the US military. Only the Type 99 MBT can even match anything the US fields (the Chengdu J-20 doesn't count because it's not in service yet).
Desert Storm Objective kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Saddam was hording the worlds oil and he was picking on our allies Kuwait. Saddam had to go when he say the Abrams coming he ran all the way back to Baghdad and went into hiding.
You are not going to just go away with "the end" statement? I will miss you!
While talking about me, U are: wrong, wrong again and one more time: wrong! That "fear of death" was really funny! After experiancing NDE few years back, I am actually anticipating death because I allready know what to expect. Honestly, comming back was and is the hard part! That said, it is the truth that I am after.
You do stand out! The same crap spread over many videos makes me think that you do not have a girlfriend.
Do you really do not see how one sided you are?
How many videos you have posted made with the same Russian camera? You do not have the mental depth to be usefull/educational and you imediately go on offensive with insults. Are you that insecure about what U believe in that you must destroy any other opposing view? Get a grip on reality man!
Good news here is, you cannot delete any of opposing points or block sender. Your responses make you look really foolish towing your commie propaganda line and everyone here is able to see it!
@patrikasLTL Yom Kippur - Just two centurions held off more than 250 T-62 and 55 tanks. Destroyed 80, without one lost despite damage, and the other 170 tanks retreated. 1948-70 designed Russian vehicles were all death traps. T-62 was among the worst.
@patrikasLTL, And georgian troops had a complete USMC training regeme did they? In fact most of the georgian officers preferred the old soviet rush tactics rather than any application of american style manuver warfare. Both the US and the Russians have both proven they can crush the others proxy armies/ client states.
@patrikasLTL, they were trained by the US army, but not with the same level the americans have, and they used russian made equipment (BTR60/80, T72, AKM, SU25. Saying they are an accurate representation of US forces is like saying iraqs soviet influenced training and tactics are at the same level of the red army.
@patrikasLTL, Georgian army tried to mix a tiny sample of US training with mainly russian equipment and tactics. During korea upgraded shermans beat the famous T34, The M26 pershing and M48 Patton completely outclassed any russian supplied tanks. During the 6 day war and Yom Kippar war Israeli upgraded sherman tanks beat T55s.
@patrikasLTL Yeah too bad the Iraqi's were led by bunch of losers. I myself was just impressed by the numbers nothing else. but if there's an army out there that would like to stand up to the U.S. just call 911 and our cluster bombs should take care of them. Then again i really don't think there's an army out there that would like to try.
The Iraqi's couldnt fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I wonder how the russian tanks would have done if they had been used by people who actually understood tank warfare and knew how and wanted to fight. I'm quite sure the M1 would have still prevailed.. that theater was perfect for the m1, much like north africa had been for the german tiger.
No question that the Iraqi's obsolete russian tanks are outmatched by the abrams! I don't know about you ladies but I'm an M1A1 Abrams tank fan & with no doubt this is the greatest ever tank of its generation.
Also by the time of the gulf war, the Iraqi had been stunted by the US arms embargo. Many Iraqi tanks went into battle with only 1 or 2 real shells. The rest were useless training rounds. Saddam did not think the US would intervene on the behalf of tiny Kuwait. Which was right, they didn't. They intervene because they feared the Saddam would invade Saudi Arabia which held a huge chunk of the west's oil imports.
the iraqi didn't have good training, and their armour deployment was poorly done, they should have concentrated their armour on the boarder, they had it spread out all over
@ComeAndSeevX lol i know. a modern tank purchased from the Soviet Union? isnt that contradictory or something? even if you upgrade it its not at the level of modern tanks
@ComeAndSeevX Realistically, the T-72M1 was what most of the outer Russian-Soviet USSR states had. Including Czechoslovakia and Poland. So, realistically speaking, we did encounter "modern day" T-72s. And please note the fact that M1 kit brings the simple, pathetic T-72M to a T-72A's standards. :P
@ComeAndSeevX this was known by actual strategic planners, when actual soviet spec t-72s were acquired for evaluation, their armor systems led to new developments in tank ammunition
@tehatemachine Let's see. The T-72 export model had no laser ranger finder, no computer assisted targeting, no composite or reactive armor, no infrared or effective night vision systems, no air support, and was manned by demoralized Arab crews run by an incompetent military leadership, and then placed in dug in hull-down sandbag positions in wide-open deserts that you can see miles from.
@ComeAndSeevX Dude. Why can't you just give up and accept the Fact that the M1 Abrams is a superior tank? Hell the leopard 2 will easily kick the shit out of the T-72 as well. the T-90 however is a different story. But still doesn't have the protection that the Abrams has.
@ComeAndSeevX Well there were not that many modern T-72s by the end of the late 1980s. I think there was 3000 T-72B/BV, 4000 T-80/80B/BV, 400 T-80U/UD and maybe 2000 T-64B varrients. With the exception of the T-80U/UD the outcome would be about the same.
@EasyEs You dont understand... They were shitty stripped down export versions with no additional armor, no ERA, thermal, night vision.... Iraq is a 3rd world country... against a super power....
Its like a Tiger Tank going head on vs a Sherman.
@Hatinonthehaters Yes like most tanks in the USSR at the time. Very few tanks in the 1980s even then end had ERA, almost none had thermal, the vast majority of 125mm ammo would have been little use against western MBTs. The best T-80UDs with the best ammo would have been a real tough nut to crack but there were to few of them. The differences between the T-72B and the T-72M1 are not great enough to tip the scales in favor of the T-72 much
@Hatinonthehaters No I do understand. Russian tanks at the same time were in part not much better then the T-72M. The vast majority of tanks in Russian service in the late 1980s were T-80Bs and T-72 varrients. None of them had thermals. Their armor was better but not good enough to stop a M-829A1. Their ammo was better but not enough to kill a M1A1HA from the front. Yes the USSR would have done much better but better is not the same as good enough.
@firefatkid Well if a victory of 9 against 38 says anything, its that Russia would've been screwed in a war. But Im sure they had better tanks and munitions so it might've been a 9-37 win in that case. :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Tanks are for tank on tank battles", not really when tanks where invented the thought of a tnak on tank was never thought of, even in WW2 tnaks were for mainly troop support, tanks are still mainly for Troop support.
@nguyen5055 Yeah, an M113 is an armored vehicle but does that mean I'd be as safe inside one rather than an M1A1? fuck no! "Armored" just means it his some protection. And most are usually APCs or AFVs like the said 113 or Bradley. Give me an Abrams any day.
@elli782. To classify as a tank, it must be fully tracked (no wheeled or half tracked vehicles) and have its main gun housed in a fully enclosed rotating turret. Its main weapon must be a direct fire weapon, no artillery or AA allowed. It also cannot have the ability to transport troops in its interior (the merkivas rudementry transport abilities are an exeption). Anything that does not meet all these requirements is a self propelled gun, APC, IFV, LAV etc.
@elli782: To classify as a tank, it must be fully tracked (no wheeled or half tracked vehicles) and have its main gun housed in a fully enclosed rotating turret. Its main weapon must be a direct fire weapon, no artillery or AA allowed. It also cannot have the ability to transport troops in its interior (the merkivas rudementry transport abilities are an exeption). Anything that does not meet all these requirements is a self propelled gun, APC, IFV, LAV etc.
@elli782 Nope, armoured vehicle covers anything that has armour and moves under its own propulsion, this covers APC's (armoured personel carriers), tanks, armoured cars, IFV's (Infantry fighting vehicles) and even a toyota pickup can be armoured down and called an Armoured Vehicle.
@elli782 An armored vehicle doesn't generally exist for its own sake. It is a troop transport or an anti-aircraft vehicle or what's generally classed a "light armored vehicle."
I hate these bullshit arguments over who's tank is better. Almost all modern tanks have similar qualities and all have their set backs. The Abrams, Challenger, Leopard, T-90, etc are all good tanks and it seems the top tank depends on who is doing the test. This dumb argument has to stop because nobody is going to have their mind changed via youtube comments.
BigChiefMike 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Modern T-72's".... 72 means 1972 ROFL... On top of that shitty export versions of without thermal, night visions, armor etc etc... it was designed between 1967-1972... Cmon now...
Its like a King Tiger vs a Sherman head on lol.
Hatinonthehaters 1 month ago
Comment removed
Hatinonthehaters 1 month ago
US forces get fight against rebels with no using hi-tech weapons, no hi powered armed vehicles, advance jet fighter planes and very trainable armies so how they can won against to them why don't they try to fight against those nation who have the same power like them!?
6digit 3 months ago
@6digit RE READ HISTORY again then come back to me. Your head is off in la la land. Ever hear of WWII? Korean War? DESERT STORM (look up)
tehatemachine 3 months ago
@6digit Shit! THE COLD WAR most importantly.
tehatemachine 3 months ago
When a us tank is hit and not movable the other tanks are instructed to take it out of the fight and blow it up so it cant be used by the enemy...there are reports that even knowing where town hit it and using the 120mm cannon on the abrams, us tank crews had trouble destroying it because it is so well armored...god dam the us has a good tank
cgo2551 3 months ago
Thank the maker they did not run into a T-90, LoL T72 that is a 35 year old tank. Us military power has not really been tested since 1983. Give me China vs USA!
SpankTV 6 months ago
@SpankTV I'm Chinese, and I can tell you that the PLA is much worse than the US military. Only the Type 99 MBT can even match anything the US fields (the Chengdu J-20 doesn't count because it's not in service yet).
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
Desert Storm Objective kick Saddam out of Kuwait. Saddam was hording the worlds oil and he was picking on our allies Kuwait. Saddam had to go when he say the Abrams coming he ran all the way back to Baghdad and went into hiding.
geomodelrailroader 7 months ago
lol 5:02..... i thought we gotten passed that.
floorpounder 8 months ago
@patrikasLTL
Looks like, anything more I may say, will be considered by readers as blatant pickin on you.
I shall limit myself than to strictly technical response next time I come across your posts.
Dasvidania tavarishch patrikasLTL!
hetmanbasza 10 months ago
@patrikasLTL
Wow! one word repply for centuries of Russian history.
Which one of the 2 basic def. U want to go with: "The mind game"? or "Popular vedeo game"? U like the mind games so I'll stick with the first!
hetmanbasza 10 months ago
@patrikasLTL
You are not going to just go away with "the end" statement? I will miss you!
While talking about me, U are: wrong, wrong again and one more time: wrong! That "fear of death" was really funny! After experiancing NDE few years back, I am actually anticipating death because I allready know what to expect. Honestly, comming back was and is the hard part! That said, it is the truth that I am after.
How each "feels" about it is irevelant.
Name something original from Russia.
hetmanbasza 10 months ago
@patrikasLTL
You do stand out! The same crap spread over many videos makes me think that you do not have a girlfriend.
Do you really do not see how one sided you are?
How many videos you have posted made with the same Russian camera? You do not have the mental depth to be usefull/educational and you imediately go on offensive with insults. Are you that insecure about what U believe in that you must destroy any other opposing view? Get a grip on reality man!
hetmanbasza 10 months ago
@patrikasLTL
You really have a problem with facts.
Good news here is, you cannot delete any of opposing points or block sender. Your responses make you look really foolish towing your commie propaganda line and everyone here is able to see it!
hetmanbasza 10 months ago
@patrikasLTL Yom Kippur - Just two centurions held off more than 250 T-62 and 55 tanks. Destroyed 80, without one lost despite damage, and the other 170 tanks retreated. 1948-70 designed Russian vehicles were all death traps. T-62 was among the worst.
Tyco200 10 months ago
@patrikasLTL, And georgian troops had a complete USMC training regeme did they? In fact most of the georgian officers preferred the old soviet rush tactics rather than any application of american style manuver warfare. Both the US and the Russians have both proven they can crush the others proxy armies/ client states.
thenoobfactor 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL, they were trained by the US army, but not with the same level the americans have, and they used russian made equipment (BTR60/80, T72, AKM, SU25. Saying they are an accurate representation of US forces is like saying iraqs soviet influenced training and tactics are at the same level of the red army.
thenoobfactor 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL, Georgian army tried to mix a tiny sample of US training with mainly russian equipment and tactics. During korea upgraded shermans beat the famous T34, The M26 pershing and M48 Patton completely outclassed any russian supplied tanks. During the 6 day war and Yom Kippar war Israeli upgraded sherman tanks beat T55s.
thenoobfactor 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL Yeah too bad the Iraqi's were led by bunch of losers. I myself was just impressed by the numbers nothing else. but if there's an army out there that would like to stand up to the U.S. just call 911 and our cluster bombs should take care of them. Then again i really don't think there's an army out there that would like to try.
cherylz1 1 year ago
WOW... 9 M1's vs 48 tanks in 23 mins. This is one of the 1st times the M1 went into battle. Just Amazing!!!
cherylz1 1 year ago
Correction: 38 tanks.
cherylz1 1 year ago
The Iraqi's couldnt fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I wonder how the russian tanks would have done if they had been used by people who actually understood tank warfare and knew how and wanted to fight. I'm quite sure the M1 would have still prevailed.. that theater was perfect for the m1, much like north africa had been for the german tiger.
snowboredsnj 1 year ago
my dad was in this war he lost half of his middle finger loading a rownd to take out a t-72
KHfreak7526 2 years ago 3
Much of the Soviet tank force was also under-trained and under-maintained (half the tanks weren't operable it is estimated).
WheelsRCool 2 years ago
No question that the Iraqi's obsolete russian tanks are outmatched by the abrams! I don't know about you ladies but I'm an M1A1 Abrams tank fan & with no doubt this is the greatest ever tank of its generation.
Rizhartheslasher 2 years ago 2
Yeah against out-dated T -72s, manned by untrained crews with total aircover. Ahahaha...This documentary is total rubbish as I predicted.
azz578 2 years ago
Also by the time of the gulf war, the Iraqi had been stunted by the US arms embargo. Many Iraqi tanks went into battle with only 1 or 2 real shells. The rest were useless training rounds. Saddam did not think the US would intervene on the behalf of tiny Kuwait. Which was right, they didn't. They intervene because they feared the Saddam would invade Saudi Arabia which held a huge chunk of the west's oil imports.
lendmeurears 2 years ago
the iraqi didn't have good training, and their armour deployment was poorly done, they should have concentrated their armour on the boarder, they had it spread out all over
mard420 2 years ago
lol, Iraq was armed with modern T-72s. You mean stripped down export models?
ComeAndSeevX 2 years ago 16
@ComeAndSeevX lol i know. a modern tank purchased from the Soviet Union? isnt that contradictory or something? even if you upgrade it its not at the level of modern tanks
animeizawesome321 1 year ago
@ComeAndSeevX moreover Iraquis have been using type of ammo which had been withdrawn from Warsaw Pact in 1971 ...
Dollar1998 1 year ago
@ComeAndSeevX Realistically, the T-72M1 was what most of the outer Russian-Soviet USSR states had. Including Czechoslovakia and Poland. So, realistically speaking, we did encounter "modern day" T-72s. And please note the fact that M1 kit brings the simple, pathetic T-72M to a T-72A's standards. :P
Tyco200 10 months ago
@ComeAndSeevX this was known by actual strategic planners, when actual soviet spec t-72s were acquired for evaluation, their armor systems led to new developments in tank ammunition
aracaen 5 months ago
@ComeAndSeevX Even if it was striped down, shit at least 38 should of easily taken on 9 early model Abrams.
tehatemachine 3 months ago
@tehatemachine Let's see. The T-72 export model had no laser ranger finder, no computer assisted targeting, no composite or reactive armor, no infrared or effective night vision systems, no air support, and was manned by demoralized Arab crews run by an incompetent military leadership, and then placed in dug in hull-down sandbag positions in wide-open deserts that you can see miles from.
ComeAndSeevX 3 months ago
@ComeAndSeevX Dude. Why can't you just give up and accept the Fact that the M1 Abrams is a superior tank? Hell the leopard 2 will easily kick the shit out of the T-72 as well. the T-90 however is a different story. But still doesn't have the protection that the Abrams has.
tehatemachine 3 months ago
Comment removed
ComeAndSeevX 3 months ago
@tehatemachine The true test of potential would be on the plains of Europe between 20,000 modern T-72s on vs 8,000 Abram's.
ComeAndSeevX 3 months ago
@ComeAndSeevX Well there were not that many modern T-72s by the end of the late 1980s. I think there was 3000 T-72B/BV, 4000 T-80/80B/BV, 400 T-80U/UD and maybe 2000 T-64B varrients. With the exception of the T-80U/UD the outcome would be about the same.
EasyEs 2 months ago
@EasyEs You dont understand... They were shitty stripped down export versions with no additional armor, no ERA, thermal, night vision.... Iraq is a 3rd world country... against a super power....
Its like a Tiger Tank going head on vs a Sherman.
Its like
Hatinonthehaters 1 month ago
@Hatinonthehaters Yes like most tanks in the USSR at the time. Very few tanks in the 1980s even then end had ERA, almost none had thermal, the vast majority of 125mm ammo would have been little use against western MBTs. The best T-80UDs with the best ammo would have been a real tough nut to crack but there were to few of them. The differences between the T-72B and the T-72M1 are not great enough to tip the scales in favor of the T-72 much
EasyEs 1 month ago
@Hatinonthehaters No I do understand. Russian tanks at the same time were in part not much better then the T-72M. The vast majority of tanks in Russian service in the late 1980s were T-80Bs and T-72 varrients. None of them had thermals. Their armor was better but not good enough to stop a M-829A1. Their ammo was better but not enough to kill a M1A1HA from the front. Yes the USSR would have done much better but better is not the same as good enough.
EasyEs 1 month ago
This tank trully is a no.1 morden killingmachine
flagger780768 2 years ago
so foolish, Air was a better idea..... Or long range missile or get them heavy 14 inch cannons working!
Ajc52 2 years ago
they used this tactic for minimazing casuallties
muiecomunisti 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What the hell? Commercials like in every 10 minutes! Damn, that sucks!
14Trooper88 2 years ago
awesome tank :]
KINGD1991 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh, and this video failed to notice that the T-72 MBTs used by the Iraki, were not from Russia.
-They should study more.
Iraki also used T-62(worst tank what Reds made) and T-55 copies.
Sending compleatly outdated Tanks against modern Western MBTs in a friggin Desert should give some insight of the Iraki leadership talents for war.
ArmaFennica 3 years ago
i agree...but negative comments seem always are being ignored in those documentaries
Nebukadnezarthe2nd 3 years ago 8
Comment removed
SpywareHater 3 years ago
every tank that russia makes is shit they just make a hell of allot of them.
firefatkid 2 years ago 3
Finally, someone who is not brainwashed and realizes that Russia and their shitty equipment are a joke.
williepayt01 2 years ago
@firefatkid Well if a victory of 9 against 38 says anything, its that Russia would've been screwed in a war. But Im sure they had better tanks and munitions so it might've been a 9-37 win in that case. :)
TheRealTaco87 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
does anyone here like 2pac?
some1 help my pussy is wet ;] 9q
14779042 3 years ago
shut up hore, lolm amazingly good tank
ECWUSA1995 3 years ago
Armored vehicals, tanks, whats the difference?
elli782 3 years ago
Armored vehicles don't have as much protect as a tank and they for troops. Tanks are for tank on tank battles.
nguyen5055 3 years ago
Tanks are not exclusively for hunting other tanks. Anti-tank crews are for that.
MBTs are for rapid moving, hard hitting strikes.
(and some foolishly use them as infantry support, thus binding their true potential)
ArmaFennica 3 years ago 3
Comment removed
SpywareHater 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Tanks are for tank on tank battles", not really when tanks where invented the thought of a tnak on tank was never thought of, even in WW2 tnaks were for mainly troop support, tanks are still mainly for Troop support.
elli782 3 years ago
@nguyen5055 Yeah, an M113 is an armored vehicle but does that mean I'd be as safe inside one rather than an M1A1? fuck no! "Armored" just means it his some protection. And most are usually APCs or AFVs like the said 113 or Bradley. Give me an Abrams any day.
phillyslasher 1 year ago
@elli782 a hell of a lot.
thenoobfactor 1 year ago
@elli782. To classify as a tank, it must be fully tracked (no wheeled or half tracked vehicles) and have its main gun housed in a fully enclosed rotating turret. Its main weapon must be a direct fire weapon, no artillery or AA allowed. It also cannot have the ability to transport troops in its interior (the merkivas rudementry transport abilities are an exeption). Anything that does not meet all these requirements is a self propelled gun, APC, IFV, LAV etc.
thenoobfactor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elli782: To classify as a tank, it must be fully tracked (no wheeled or half tracked vehicles) and have its main gun housed in a fully enclosed rotating turret. Its main weapon must be a direct fire weapon, no artillery or AA allowed. It also cannot have the ability to transport troops in its interior (the merkivas rudementry transport abilities are an exeption). Anything that does not meet all these requirements is a self propelled gun, APC, IFV, LAV etc.
thenoobfactor 1 year ago
@elli782 Nope, armoured vehicle covers anything that has armour and moves under its own propulsion, this covers APC's (armoured personel carriers), tanks, armoured cars, IFV's (Infantry fighting vehicles) and even a toyota pickup can be armoured down and called an Armoured Vehicle.
Xterminate13 1 year ago
@elli782 An armored vehicle doesn't generally exist for its own sake. It is a troop transport or an anti-aircraft vehicle or what's generally classed a "light armored vehicle."
sukiari 11 months ago
awsome
elli782 3 years ago