@Nepo35 dont think i hate the challenger 2 but the m1a3 abrams is still being designed with new things (idk any of the new things) so the challenger 2 wont look good next to the m1a3 but then again there could be a newer challenger 3
@paradox795 It has a gas turbine engine, which is VERY different from a turboprop. It compresses air and injects fuel into it in a way that is very similar to that of a jet engine.
It also uses JB-8 as its main propellent, which is jet fuel. It also has jet blast in the rear of the tank.
It's funny when there's a video about an American vehicle, foreigners go crazy and call it shit and saying how every other tank is superior.
And they think it's American propaganda. Jeez, it's pathetic when people can't accept the Abrams belongs to be ontop with the Leopard, Challenger, etc.
the abrams and the leopard both have the same gun M265 is just the u.s designation when manufactued in the u.s, rheinmetall in germany, is the original desiger and manufactuer, and both are made from steel depleted uranium is used in the armour. And the reason the abrams is govenend is because you would throw track at 70mph
the reason usa decided to go with abrams was becaus it was better armored and it still getting upgraded and the m256 gun on abrams has proven greater penatrtion of targets at long distances with depleated uranium cores then the german l/55 gun with steel cores and abrams has good cross country and if abrams diddnt have a general it could go up to 70 mph but not long distances
Well, The only probelm I see with the Challenger is that there are so few of them. Otherwise it is the Equivilent or better than the Abrams and the Leopard. However, all three of thos tanks have the same type of armor. That was of course, a British Invention.
@xCh34pShOtx no becuase its made by americians and amercians do not like things that are better then theres the abrams should be in number 4 or 5 it is a good tank but not as good as the challenger or leopard 2 or mekrava
@MrGta12367 I'm sure you haven't hopped in that awesome Challenger everyone keeps talking about and destroyed any Abrams tanks so Idk why people have to act like they know everything about tanks just by watching videos on youtube...
@MrGta12367 where have the leopard 2 proven is better than the abrams , abrams have fought in 2 or more wars and have always come out on top killing of they enemy like childs play , what have leopard and challenger done lets see not 1 thing and u all calling it the best lol
@marcusbloods1 Are you seriously saying that those so-called wars had ended differently if leopard 2 had fought in those wars instead of Abrams? That's preposterous. Abrams is an awful tank: the only reason why it made 2nd in this list is because the series is American. Watch the real m1 abrams series by blacktaildefense for a realistic assessment of the vaunted Abrams: its a gas guzzling, expensive, over complicated, fragile piece of machinery that never achieved the goals that were set for it.
@TheTokkin yo that series by blacktaildefense is shit all the videos in that collection tries to under rate american equipment . The gas guzzling engine will work with anything ( gas, diesel , cooking oil , jet fuel) while other tanks stuck on only diesel , fragile lol u got to be joking go tell that to all the tanks it killed , you on the other hand is just another anti american fool who will call anything america makes shit or useless, or yea it killed off Iraq army goal achieved
@marcusbloods1 he criticizes various vehicles, including t62, t64, arjun, which are not American, and praises m113 Gavin and m60 tanks. The reason why he focuses on Stryker, Bradley and Abrams is probably because of the fawning support these vehicles receive EVEN THOUGH NO ONE OUTSIDE THE US uses them, unless forced to by American contracts. yes, it is fragile: they had to spend many hours in maintenance because of faulty components, bad tracks, engine problems and so on and so forth.
@TheTokkin so because no1 outside the US uses them its shit . The main reason other countries dont use them is because they are expensive and out of their reach , lets go on a kill ratio , how many tanks have been killed by he Abrams in comparison to other modern tanks , how many combat have it seen compared to other tanks ....... answer that
@marcusbloods1 yeah, poor export performance: the fact that US offered it to many, but few have chosen it over leo2 and t 90s and so forth. this does kind of show that its not as good as its rivals. Busting some ancient t 55 and t 62s in wide open desert while under perfect air coverage is hardly notable "combat record". T 90 and leo2 can easily do the same. Even Desert storm showed m1s limitations: its gas guzzling engine prevented the full realization of American strategy.
@marcusbloods1 "yo that series by blacktaildefense is shit all the videos in that collection tries to under rate american equipment " that is not true, he himself is a republican american who has more videos about foreign equipment
0.30 lol, It couldn't take on 2 Challenger 2s, 2 Leopard 2s, 2 Leclercs, 2 Merkava 4s and many others, AND he says "or more".....this guy is talking shit, the Abrams is good but not THAT good.
What about the incident in Basra in 2003 where a Challenger 2 was hit by another Challenger 2 and 2 crew members where killed when the ammo rack exploded?
@usmarine4160 Good point, but heres an interesting thought, It took Challenger gun to get throught the Chobam armour - says something about the Challanger gun.
abrams and leopards are cousins look it up they are both products from a failed German/American tank concept in the 70s. So it is no wonder why they dominate these lists.
@TheProjektcc American and German technology will always be top-notch in the battlefield. I wish people would stop arguing about which is better (Leo or Abrams) because hopefully us two nations will always fight side by side and fire at a mutual enemy.
@GameplayWithEngie That's unlikely given that Germany is almost entirely comprised of Socialists that hate USA. America is leaving Germany and putting their bases in Poland. The German people have been poor hosts and should be ashamed of what they are becoming. USA needs reliable allies and friends, not a pack of left wing idiots who flame USA at every opportunity they get.
@PkayerZxz2 Why should they be ashamed they want a foreign power out of their country. That's patriotic not flaming. No country that has freedom should want a foreign military power in their lands.
@Blackswordsman6 Are you serious? Do you know anything about history? USA rebuilt Germany single handedly after WWII, the US, British, Canadians, were all there during the Cold War to help defend Germany from the Communist threat. As a part of NATO they were there to protect Germany, and how do the Germans thank them? They let their media flame them at every opportunity and teach their kids to be idiot, spoiled brats that don't have to work for anything to make a living.
@PkayerZxz2 You no nothing of Germany. Americans basically occupy the country and if they want them out they should leave. Also the Ruhr boom helped massivly you fucking idiot. Germany is weak and pathetic not because they want to kick America out but because they have no will to do so.
@XIronChancellorX Yes I suppose an American teenager of German decent knows more about Cold War Germany than I do. Son, my uncle was stationed in Germany with the CF for years and goes there on a trip every year. The Ruhr laid in ruins after WWII, who the fuck do you think rebuilt it? USA and the Marshall Plan rebuilt Germany. USA made Germany the #3 economy in the world because they wanted to. Germany wouldn't look much different that 1945 if it weren't for USA, and this is how they are repayed
@PkayerZxz2 First my Dad was stationed there to. And my decent has little to do with it you arrogant fuck. The Ruhr still had coal rather the towns laid in ruin or not. The Coal industry started up again right after WW2. Even before the Marshall Plan. Also it is ignorant to believe Germany would still be in ruin you fuck. Why do you think you are so fucking smart? You think you are so fucking superior and for no reason. America is still occuping Germany with those bases, they can be mad, youfuck
@XIronChancellorX You act as if USA is still imposing Marshall law on Germany. They have a few military bases there for logistical support. They aren't maintaining huge armored divisions there or anything. As for the Saar where Germany's coal was, you are 100% incorrect. The Saar was once again handed over to economic administration by France as a protectorate in 1947 and did not politically return to Germany until January 1957. The Marshall Plan is 100% responsible for rebuilding Germany.
@XIronChancellorX Of course it isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that USA has had basing agreements with Germany since the Cold War. USA didn't force Germany to let them stay there, when USA really had the right to do it. Germany would not exist today without USA. France wanted to turn Germany into Farmland, essentially their economic bitch. USA wanted them to be the #1 power in Europe again. USA made Germany what it is today and the German people will be forever in debt to USA.
@PkayerZxz2 Ya says your bullshit. Germany would still be alive and well today with or without America's help. The German people owe no debt to the US rather you like it or not. Many "american" achievements come from German tech after WW2, such as landing on the moon. The US is still occuping the country of Germany for no reason and the US helped put Germany in "jail." The Basic Law hold back Germany in just about every aspect ,especially military. Guess who helped with that law, the US.
@XIronChancellorX Germany's post war constitution is hardly relevant to their economy, unless of course their constitution contains sections that are related to economic law which I seriously doubt.
@PkayerZxz2 It holds them back. The Basic Law is part of what hold back the Germans for trying to be number 1. They dont have the will and the chance, with Basic Law.
@PkayerZxz2 The main reason was it was made by the Allies. It limits Germany's chance to be stronger. Also I am leaving soon so I wont respond until next Monday.
@XIronChancellorX No it doesn't. It does not limit Germany's economic or military power. You are confusing it with the way USA rewrote Japan's constitution. Nor was Basic Law forced on Germany.
@PkayerZxz2 he is confusing it with the Treaty of Versailles which does in fact limit there military numbers and power. if england and france would have invaded immediately upon confirmed violation of the treaty of versailles (pussies), and if my own USA would have not been so damned stubborn (but who can blame us? we were tired of wasting our lives on your euro bullshit) millions upon millions of lives would have been saved.
@TheNondiscriminatory But, on the other hand, if UK and France didn't declare war on Germany after they invaded Poland would millions of lives been spared aswell? It's an interesting thought.
don't be silly, part of the reason the joint program was canceled was that each side had their own ideas and requirements that they wanted for a future tank design. This resulted in the creation of two different versions the American one and the German one. But they were both based on the same concept. This caused the cost of the program to sky rocket and become extremely over budget and it was eventually canceled.
You should really get a more mature view of History.
@Blackswordsman6 Someone needs to brush up on thier history lest they look anymore stupid in the future. The Americans didn't steal anything. BOth the Leopard and Abrams stem from the 1960's MBT-70, a joint venture between USA and Germany.
With the Abrams as old as it is its still a very great tank. Even if 1 is knocked out there are still about over 9000 produced. Also, the crews have been saved due to the blowout panels. That thing has been through everything compared to the Leopard that has seen very little combat. The US is going to be making a new tank and hopefully it will be even greater than the Abrams.
@packr72, whatever it is if it can take IED's, and Russian ATGM and RPG 29's and surive top attacks then I'll go with it. I bet it still will cost at least 7 to 9 million dollars a tank. I bet they'll probably make at least 2 to 3000 over a 10 year period if there isn't a big war going on at that time.
@Eidwlolatrhs Uhm, Russia's T-90 still needs add ons. Abrams has survived hits from RPGs without add ons. Secondly, the T-90 keeps its ammo under the turret and cannot fire on the move. Making it useless. Also, in a simple 10v10 fight with M1 vs T-90, M1 has superior communications. Which means ALL tanks will see one tank's exact target. ;) Or as Tom Clancy put it, "I WISH HE WAS DEAD!"
Every soviet tank since T-54 can fire on move, whoever told you that they can't, he lied you, kid.
Storing ammo under turret in autoloader and storage, right of autoloader is good thing for conventional tank battles, when you face enemy in frontal attack, because there is 0 chance that round will penetrate and hit the ammo. For asimetrical warfare, that kind of storing is vunerable.
There are M1's knocked out by RPG's. His side armor is also weak.
@GvardiyaBY no dumbass when you surround a turret with ammo the ammo will easily be cooked off and explode sending the whole turret flying. and the only times abrams have been destroyed ARE when it was hit at its WEAKEST points(sides of turret, engine compartment) the abrams is virtually indestructible from the front
Do you know what is basic doctrine of armorcombat? Frontal confrontation with enemy on large open areas. From front side, every modern tank is indestructible. Even your own experts said that about tested examples of T-72B. Not a single tank can survive side hit from modern ATGM or tank round.
Autoloader and storage is perfectly protected for standard armor fighting doctrine, because there is no chance that you will penetrate front armor and that round will end up in autoloader.
In other hand, that way of storing ammo is vunerable in asimetrical warfare, and against IED attacks (every tank is vunerable in that conditions).
Turret is not "sorounded" by ammo, ammo is under it in autoloader, while extra ammo is on right side of tank, next to autoloader, and that stored ammo cause cook-off effect, but in 90% of tests we made, that thing never happens instantly, but after couple of minutes of burning.
@hotpocketpoison - Surround turret? What you talking, guy? Maybe you can learn real facts on tanks than you come back? T-90 have no ammunitions on his turret. Ammunitions located on floor of the hull. Guy said before that for conventional warfare this placement is very protected. Abrams indestructable from front? ...Blue-on-Blue, Abrams have penetrated other Abrams on front, so why can other tank not exactly?
@bittemeinrammstein which will still be the most catastrophic placement if cooked off, it would undoubtedly kill everyone on board. and there were multiple cases where an abrams was hit directly at its front by sabots from other abrams and failed to penetrate. and the M829A3 is one of the best APFSDS on earth the only better one is KEW-A1(also american) so i honestly wouldnt be surprised if it penetrated, however none ever have.
Like any tank, the abrams also has weak spots and no, not only sides or back, but also front, areas which are not protected by DU armour layers, are vulnerable to penetration even by moderately outdated RPGs.
@vtkrey the designers put almost all the heavy armor up front, so while their may be weakER parts at the front of the abrams it is still good enough to stop almost any modern round, and i dont know where you got that last part but i think you read the source wrong :P
While the M1A1 frontal armour averages at more or less 1000mm RHAe (vs HEAT), weakspots, which exsist on the frontal aspect, provide as little as 500mm RHAe armour protection, well within the penetrating capability of an RPG-7 with an PG7VR warhead, given a lucky shot to hit these weakspots, it is likely that an RPG-7 can produce a penetration in the front.
@Tyco200 - Cant fire on the move? You are simply pure moron for that. T-90 survived 7 PG-7 warheads on Dagestan... even T-72B survived ATGM and RPG-7 hits over 9 on Chechnya war. You are simply idiot. You do not seem to understand how ERA is designed so mobility can be saved, and protection at max. You simply do not understand tanks at all...
@Eidwlolatrhs its cheaper cause its inferior, tanks are expensive, the russians havent figuered out hoe to build an awesome tanks cheap, it cant be done, abrams is better and it has the combat record against other tanks, something the t90 doesnt have
It's not that the Abrams is a very good tank just because its American, the Americans just have more to spend on their military budget, the other countries cannot match the military spending of the United States.
@dragondisaster expect for UK (well they beat the US in the navy) the Most Advanced/Technological ship in the world belongs to the Royal Navy but the Airforce is the most important thing witch is why the US army is so powerful if you have Air Superiorty then you bascilly won :/
The M1 abrams is in the same league as the Challenger 1 and Leopard 1. Yet through upgrades it has managed to keep up with the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2. Now the new M1A3 is being developed as America's modern MBT design. Keep the Abrams with the Ch1 and Leo2 and lump the M1A3, Leopard 2A7, and Ch2 together.
Wait a god dam minute..:)..that guy was shoot in the 50 cal with an rpg and the tank absorbed the damage?? WTF...I want to see how the tank absorbers :) (funny word) a direct well aimed RPG and not that sissy little ones..you know what I mean.
And that goes for other tanks too and then we will see how the armor absorbs the damage :).
hm the Leopard is the Greatest Tank in the world but i keep getting replys saying "NUH UUUUUHHHH!!!! THE ABRAMS IS THE GREATEST TANK IN THE WORLD CAUSE ITS AMERICAN UHHHH!!" seriously the USA can be the Most powerful country in the woeld but its not best at everything
@evildeathmonkey1 I would say no...because the top tanks in the world right now are all being designed and built by our friends and allies. It's a great tank, and has probably seen the most action in the most places of any of the modern tanks, but it does have a series of liabilities which I believe could be exploited. I would say the greatest strength of the M1 is not in its hardware, but its software -- coupled with battlefield experience.
@evildeathmonkey1 Additionally, the Abrams' logistical requirement (one of the liabilities I mentioned) is so enormous, that if America continues to suffer (pathetically self-inflicted) economic woes, I believe the widespread and efficacious use of the M1 would be endangered. It's phenomenally expensive to engineer and operate, and if the US doesn't have the economic power to keep its main battlers humming, its battlefield power will likely be seriously compromised.
@Kiahsobyk Your comments make sense, thank you. I thought maybe T-90 might have fought the Abrams somehow. Or maybe in some wargames it went up against Leo 2 or Merkava. Also, I never understood that turbine engine.. Must be some advantage to that that outweighs the huge fuel consumption and heat signature? There were fuel shortages when it was designed, so why did they choose this option? Same goes for the hummer I guess. Tactilely it doesn´t make sense.
@evildeathmonkey1 We wanted a tank more maneuverable and faster than anything in the world, and we got it. At the time. We should all keep in mind the M1 Abrams is 30 years old, now...definitely a very serviceable lifespan. I would easily pit the Challenger 2 against the Abrams...but the Challenger is 20 years younger, with the benefit of all the technological innovations of the 80s and 90s.
@evildeathmonkey1 I would also pit the Leopard against the Abrams with good odds to win...but the great strength of the Abrams is that (so far) the US can deploy and maintain its tank fleet in greater numbers, with the best digital tactical intelligence support. Additionally, American arms are generally employed with an eye to fitting a certain role, rather than (necessarily) out-teching everyone else. The Abrams is for local control/battle...long hitting is generally left to our Air Force
Yea it may have a big gun, move fast, but I wouldn't want want this tank in my military.
especially the fuel economy, Mobilizing you army somewhere would completely deplete your fuel resources for you entire military. Noth only that the huge sizzling exhaust gives no cover for infantry.
Better tanks then the Abrams as of right now...This present moment...:
Leopard 2A6
T-90 M (came out this year i believe..M Verison)
Oplot-M
K-2 South Korean New Tank.
The only reason the Abrams looks good and Americans think its the best is because it went up against 80 year old Iraqi tanks and RPGs from the 1950s....I'd like to see the Abrams withstanding a shot from a Leopard 2A6 or ATGM from a T-90M or withstand a shot from a L55 like the K2 did.
@Kallosar It died out because russia can not put out Alot Of money for its army right now..And What makes you think The Abrams Is so shitty compared to the other modern tanks...Dont Go preaching around like you know everything...I'd Like to see you Go in a T-90 And challenge and abrams...Your tank would be a empty flaming tomb afterwards..
First off. Russia produces quality items not trash like everyone riding the AMerican bandwagon thinks they do...
2. T-90 Advantage as of right now: Relikt ERA (successor of Kontakt-5 ERA...The M829A Series Rounds were made to pierce Russian ERA...No round exists to combat the Relikt ERA and is only on the drawing board.
3. T-90 Mobility. 1200HP Engine with 46 Ton Weight gives it a huge mobility advantage over the Abrams.
4. 125MM Gun with ATGM. French FCS and Israeli Tech
@Kallosar Russian Optics= Shit, Shit optics equal Shitty Aim, And what makes you say that that armour cannot be penetrated by m829a Series rounds. Youre trying to make the T90 seem like a perfect tank
Plus....do your research on the M829A Series Rounds...Has a A4 come out? No....Has Relikt come out? Yes....and the T-90s all have Relikt....So what happens when a A3 Inferior shell hits the brand new spanking Relikt Armor? ARmor is not pierced....
No one ever remembers that while the m256 120mm L/44 may be a German designed gun, its an American made round (the m829) that makes the Abrams so lethal
its a nice tank .. although the armour is of brittish design ( chobbum ) the gun is german ( rheinmettal 120mm gun ) i dont think the yanks realise that 2 of the most important factors of that tank firepower and protection are not yankee made .. the europeans made that tank to what it is its just that the americans used it and not us ..
I dont understand why the Abrams is always put ahead of the Challenger 2 in these sorts of documentaries. In terms of losses more Abrams have been 'killed' than Challenger 2's and the only Challenger loss came from friendly fire. Furthermore, Challenger 2 has roughly similar Digital equipment and exactly the same gun. Anyone care to explain?
The Challenger doesn't have the same gun as the Abrams. The Challenger has a rifled cannon as opposed to the Abrams (and most other modern MBT:s) which has a smoothbore cannon. This has to do with choice of ammunition. The Abrams fire HEAT rounds against light armour. If the round is spinning it would disrupt the shape charge in the HEAT round making it ineffective. The Challenger fires HESH rounds and it doesn't matter if they spin so they can use a rifled cannon. Better? Who knows?
@albinkato Challengers rifled gun is being replaced with a 120mm smoothbore in order to use standardised NATO ammunition used in the Abrams, Leopard 2 etc. And if memory serves it is very similar if not exactly the same as the Abrams main gun.
@TheTeej08 no the Abrams is a L44 it's getting the L55. same ammo but longer barrel. High weight faster the rounds comes out also so better penetration power.
@albinkato Is the CH2's L30A1 120mm is far better then the L44 on the m1a2 sep. Longest shot ever made is a CH. Is it better you decided. A rifled barrel wares out faster and costs more too make. You lose a bit power though the rifling itself meaning just a bit slower round(faster the the m1a2 120 mm L44 M256 smoothbore as the ch2 l30a is really = to a L55 barrel.) then the German L55. Rounds cost more too make as less are produced and designed too work with the rifling.
Barely over 500 Chally 2's have been made. M1 has 8500+. M1 wiped the floor with the T-72 in both gulf wars, literately taking out thousands of them with casualties less than triple digits. Chally 2 saw little action in both gulf wars, that meaning why they have virtually no losses in combat. M1 is more technologically advanced...slightly. Chally 2 uses a rifled gun which has better accuracy and range. M1's smooth-bore has better damage due to higher muzzle velocity from the gun.
@MrSquaky "m1 is more technolgically advanced" its armour was designed in the uk and its the original gun was a license built copy of a royal ordance gun so to say it is more technologically advanced is a insult it also has less range than challenger and in both wars although the challenger were less in number they still went up against enemy tanks and threats rpg,soviet tanks and the challenger had no fatalities
Challenger 2 faced a significantly lower number of enemy's to the Abrams, why you think the causality rates was virtually second to none. M1A2 Abrams SEP is probably the most tech advanced tank today. Except maybe for the Leopard 2, I don't recall much information on that tank.
@MrSquaky casuality rates were lower simply because its a better tank a few abrams did get knocked out by rpgs and shitty old soviet tanks granted there were more abrams but challenger did go up against the same threats and none were knocked out face the facts
@budbud619 dont even try to pull that shit.the challenger2 was NEVER in anywhere NEAR the magnitude of combat the abrams was in.comparing the combat record of the challenger to the abrams is like comparing a boat that was damaged traveling through a hurricane(abrams)and one that was less damaged going down a gentle stream(challenger2)and saying the 2nd one is better JUST because it took less damage and ignorantly dodging the fact that the 1st one went through 100x the hell that the 2nd one did!!
@hotpocketpoison " NEVER the magnitude" are you a retard they were fighting on a front no more than fifty miles at away at times there were less of them we know that but they went up against exactly the same as the abrams on a smaller scale and the stats speak for themselves you use no facts or knowledge for any of your claims and comparing these tanks to a stream makes you sound like a redneck with a mental illness
@budbud619 look up the battle of 73 easting, there are many other examples such as these, the chally was NEVER outnumbered like the abrams was in battles such as this. and maybe if you were using you brain you could read my analogy correctly and not IGNORE it, because it really does prove why people think the chally is better(when it isnt)
@hundturken2 Keep dreaming Estimated levels of protection for the Leopard 2a6(a7) range fto 920 - 940 (1100 a7)RHAe on the turret, 620 (700+a7)RHAe on the glacis against heat. M1a2sep (frontal turret) 1,320–1,620 millimeters (52–64 in) of RHAe versus HEAT (and other chemical energy rounds) and 940–960 mm (37–38 in) versus kinetic energy penetrators.
@hundturken2 Though the 120mm L55 gun is fast then the the m1a2 L44. So depending on round type it may Break the armor make it a moot point. In sort it will not be as good in urban fight surprise rpg 29 attack. But the m1a2sep and Challenger 2 have the best armor for this. Though the T-90 weaker armor has 2 to 3 active defenses against that making it the best for urban warfare.
The only modern, Western tank which can beat it is the Leopard 2. Even the Challey wouldn't beat it. Only flaw, the tank is a gas sucking monster XD But yea... This tank is nearly undestroyable.
You are all idiots... The Abrams could even beat the Challey if at must. Though the Leopard is a better tank, the Abrams still owns the battlefield...
Challenger two? Haha owns this
Nepo35 2 weeks ago
@Nepo35 dont think i hate the challenger 2 but the m1a3 abrams is still being designed with new things (idk any of the new things) so the challenger 2 wont look good next to the m1a3 but then again there could be a newer challenger 3
123takua 1 week ago
I gotta ask, what's with the accent of the narrator? He's clearly not British (Any common wealth country pronounce Lieutenant as Left-tenant)
GNdynames 1 month ago
@GNdynames well, i dont think a marine Lieutenant would take kindly to being called left-tenant.
HaliGrom 1 week ago
... Engine that is closser to that of a airplane turboprop engine (sorry for all the fragmented posts, my computer is really stupid)
paradox795 1 month ago
I don't know why every one says the Abrams has a jet engine in it, it doesn't. What it does have is an engin
paradox795 1 month ago
@paradox795 It has a gas turbine engine, which is VERY different from a turboprop. It compresses air and injects fuel into it in a way that is very similar to that of a jet engine.
It also uses JB-8 as its main propellent, which is jet fuel. It also has jet blast in the rear of the tank.
Anonymous52550 1 month ago
@paradox795 Also, in order to be a turboprop, you need a propeller, if it doesn't it's no where near a turboprop.
Anonymous52550 1 month ago
I don't
paradox795 1 month ago
It's funny when there's a video about an American vehicle, foreigners go crazy and call it shit and saying how every other tank is superior.
And they think it's American propaganda. Jeez, it's pathetic when people can't accept the Abrams belongs to be ontop with the Leopard, Challenger, etc.
azndude1789 2 months ago
@Blueatchley12
the abrams and the leopard both have the same gun M265 is just the u.s designation when manufactued in the u.s, rheinmetall in germany, is the original desiger and manufactuer, and both are made from steel depleted uranium is used in the armour. And the reason the abrams is govenend is because you would throw track at 70mph
drummertilldeath1 2 months ago
Awesome Bruce Dickinson. Rock star and tank lover!!!
kguen6993 2 months ago
the reason usa decided to go with abrams was becaus it was better armored and it still getting upgraded and the m256 gun on abrams has proven greater penatrtion of targets at long distances with depleated uranium cores then the german l/55 gun with steel cores and abrams has good cross country and if abrams diddnt have a general it could go up to 70 mph but not long distances
Blueatchley12 3 months ago
hmmm kerkava easy to destroy was blown up by ied small ones so merkava easy i only think leo can put up a fight
Blueatchley12 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BS you can take a battalion with a single Abram
CelestialVulpes 3 months ago
Well, The only probelm I see with the Challenger is that there are so few of them. Otherwise it is the Equivilent or better than the Abrams and the Leopard. However, all three of thos tanks have the same type of armor. That was of course, a British Invention.
Tinman253 4 months ago
why does the abrams have to always be in the top 3 the challenger deserves this spot
MrGta12367 4 months ago
@MrGta12367 Because of it's amazing armor?....
xCh34pShOtx 3 months ago
@xCh34pShOtx no becuase its made by americians and amercians do not like things that are better then theres the abrams should be in number 4 or 5 it is a good tank but not as good as the challenger or leopard 2 or mekrava
MrGta12367 3 months ago
@MrGta12367 I'm sure you haven't hopped in that awesome Challenger everyone keeps talking about and destroyed any Abrams tanks so Idk why people have to act like they know everything about tanks just by watching videos on youtube...
xCh34pShOtx 3 months ago
@xCh34pShOtx i am not saying i know everything about tanks i am just saying there are tanks better then the abrams
MrGta12367 3 months ago
Yea, too bad they'll never be used as extensively as the Abrams has.
xCh34pShOtx 3 months ago
@MrGta12367 like what tanks?
Blueatchley12 3 months ago
@Blueatchley12 like leapord 2 mekrava challengers
MrGta12367 3 months ago
@MrGta12367 where have the leopard 2 proven is better than the abrams , abrams have fought in 2 or more wars and have always come out on top killing of they enemy like childs play , what have leopard and challenger done lets see not 1 thing and u all calling it the best lol
marcusbloods1 3 months ago
@marcusbloods1 Are you seriously saying that those so-called wars had ended differently if leopard 2 had fought in those wars instead of Abrams? That's preposterous. Abrams is an awful tank: the only reason why it made 2nd in this list is because the series is American. Watch the real m1 abrams series by blacktaildefense for a realistic assessment of the vaunted Abrams: its a gas guzzling, expensive, over complicated, fragile piece of machinery that never achieved the goals that were set for it.
TheTokkin 2 months ago
@TheTokkin yo that series by blacktaildefense is shit all the videos in that collection tries to under rate american equipment . The gas guzzling engine will work with anything ( gas, diesel , cooking oil , jet fuel) while other tanks stuck on only diesel , fragile lol u got to be joking go tell that to all the tanks it killed , you on the other hand is just another anti american fool who will call anything america makes shit or useless, or yea it killed off Iraq army goal achieved
marcusbloods1 2 months ago
@marcusbloods1 he criticizes various vehicles, including t62, t64, arjun, which are not American, and praises m113 Gavin and m60 tanks. The reason why he focuses on Stryker, Bradley and Abrams is probably because of the fawning support these vehicles receive EVEN THOUGH NO ONE OUTSIDE THE US uses them, unless forced to by American contracts. yes, it is fragile: they had to spend many hours in maintenance because of faulty components, bad tracks, engine problems and so on and so forth.
TheTokkin 2 months ago
@TheTokkin so because no1 outside the US uses them its shit . The main reason other countries dont use them is because they are expensive and out of their reach , lets go on a kill ratio , how many tanks have been killed by he Abrams in comparison to other modern tanks , how many combat have it seen compared to other tanks ....... answer that
marcusbloods1 2 months ago
@marcusbloods1 yeah, poor export performance: the fact that US offered it to many, but few have chosen it over leo2 and t 90s and so forth. this does kind of show that its not as good as its rivals. Busting some ancient t 55 and t 62s in wide open desert while under perfect air coverage is hardly notable "combat record". T 90 and leo2 can easily do the same. Even Desert storm showed m1s limitations: its gas guzzling engine prevented the full realization of American strategy.
TheTokkin 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marcusbloods1 "yo that series by blacktaildefense is shit all the videos in that collection tries to under rate american equipment " that is not true, he himself is a republican american who has more videos about foreign equipment
Sallytheg4y 2 months ago
0.30 lol, It couldn't take on 2 Challenger 2s, 2 Leopard 2s, 2 Leclercs, 2 Merkava 4s and many others, AND he says "or more".....this guy is talking shit, the Abrams is good but not THAT good.
WickyWiggstaz 5 months ago
The Challenger2 has never lost a crew member and has scored the longest range hit.
nrsmello 5 months ago
@nrsmello
What about the incident in Basra in 2003 where a Challenger 2 was hit by another Challenger 2 and 2 crew members where killed when the ammo rack exploded?
usmarine4160 5 months ago
@usmarine4160 Good point, but heres an interesting thought, It took Challenger gun to get throught the Chobam armour - says something about the Challanger gun.
nrsmello 5 months ago
RPGs in Bagdad! How do you gauge how good the tank is when all it has tackled are RPGs or T72s 30 years old
nrsmello 5 months ago
M1A2 SEP V2 TUSK ,,,,, RULES
PILUPACKSXXX 6 months ago
8 gallons to start the engine,,,, wich isquite bit
PILUPACKSXXX 6 months ago
Challenger 2 beats this hands down!
mwillis1000 6 months ago
abrams and leopards are cousins look it up they are both products from a failed German/American tank concept in the 70s. So it is no wonder why they dominate these lists.
TheProjektcc 7 months ago
@TheProjektcc American and German technology will always be top-notch in the battlefield. I wish people would stop arguing about which is better (Leo or Abrams) because hopefully us two nations will always fight side by side and fire at a mutual enemy.
GameplayWithEngie 6 months ago
@GameplayWithEngie That's unlikely given that Germany is almost entirely comprised of Socialists that hate USA. America is leaving Germany and putting their bases in Poland. The German people have been poor hosts and should be ashamed of what they are becoming. USA needs reliable allies and friends, not a pack of left wing idiots who flame USA at every opportunity they get.
PkayerZxz2 6 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 Why should they be ashamed they want a foreign power out of their country. That's patriotic not flaming. No country that has freedom should want a foreign military power in their lands.
Blackswordsman6 5 months ago
@Blackswordsman6 Are you serious? Do you know anything about history? USA rebuilt Germany single handedly after WWII, the US, British, Canadians, were all there during the Cold War to help defend Germany from the Communist threat. As a part of NATO they were there to protect Germany, and how do the Germans thank them? They let their media flame them at every opportunity and teach their kids to be idiot, spoiled brats that don't have to work for anything to make a living.
PkayerZxz2 5 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 You no nothing of Germany. Americans basically occupy the country and if they want them out they should leave. Also the Ruhr boom helped massivly you fucking idiot. Germany is weak and pathetic not because they want to kick America out but because they have no will to do so.
XIronChancellorX 5 months ago
@XIronChancellorX Yes I suppose an American teenager of German decent knows more about Cold War Germany than I do. Son, my uncle was stationed in Germany with the CF for years and goes there on a trip every year. The Ruhr laid in ruins after WWII, who the fuck do you think rebuilt it? USA and the Marshall Plan rebuilt Germany. USA made Germany the #3 economy in the world because they wanted to. Germany wouldn't look much different that 1945 if it weren't for USA, and this is how they are repayed
PkayerZxz2 5 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 First my Dad was stationed there to. And my decent has little to do with it you arrogant fuck. The Ruhr still had coal rather the towns laid in ruin or not. The Coal industry started up again right after WW2. Even before the Marshall Plan. Also it is ignorant to believe Germany would still be in ruin you fuck. Why do you think you are so fucking smart? You think you are so fucking superior and for no reason. America is still occuping Germany with those bases, they can be mad, youfuck
XIronChancellorX 5 months ago
@XIronChancellorX You act as if USA is still imposing Marshall law on Germany. They have a few military bases there for logistical support. They aren't maintaining huge armored divisions there or anything. As for the Saar where Germany's coal was, you are 100% incorrect. The Saar was once again handed over to economic administration by France as a protectorate in 1947 and did not politically return to Germany until January 1957. The Marshall Plan is 100% responsible for rebuilding Germany.
PkayerZxz2 5 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 I love how you think only the Sarrland had coal, fucking idiot. How about learn Germany history beyond WW2.
XIronChancellorX 5 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 Still the US does not belong in Germany, Germany is its own, weak, nation not an occupation zone.
XIronChancellorX 5 months ago
@XIronChancellorX Of course it isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that USA has had basing agreements with Germany since the Cold War. USA didn't force Germany to let them stay there, when USA really had the right to do it. Germany would not exist today without USA. France wanted to turn Germany into Farmland, essentially their economic bitch. USA wanted them to be the #1 power in Europe again. USA made Germany what it is today and the German people will be forever in debt to USA.
PkayerZxz2 5 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 Ya says your bullshit. Germany would still be alive and well today with or without America's help. The German people owe no debt to the US rather you like it or not. Many "american" achievements come from German tech after WW2, such as landing on the moon. The US is still occuping the country of Germany for no reason and the US helped put Germany in "jail." The Basic Law hold back Germany in just about every aspect ,especially military. Guess who helped with that law, the US.
XIronChancellorX 5 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 *Guess who helped with that constitution(not law).
XIronChancellorX 5 months ago
@XIronChancellorX Germany's post war constitution is hardly relevant to their economy, unless of course their constitution contains sections that are related to economic law which I seriously doubt.
PkayerZxz2 5 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 I am saying Germans should be mad at America since the US help made Basic Law.
XIronChancellorX 5 months ago
@XIronChancellorX Why should they be mad about that?
PkayerZxz2 5 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 It holds them back. The Basic Law is part of what hold back the Germans for trying to be number 1. They dont have the will and the chance, with Basic Law.
XIronChancellorX 5 months ago
@XIronChancellorX Could you explain specifically how it does that?
PkayerZxz2 5 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 The main reason was it was made by the Allies. It limits Germany's chance to be stronger. Also I am leaving soon so I wont respond until next Monday.
XIronChancellorX 5 months ago
@XIronChancellorX No it doesn't. It does not limit Germany's economic or military power. You are confusing it with the way USA rewrote Japan's constitution. Nor was Basic Law forced on Germany.
PkayerZxz2 5 months ago
@PkayerZxz2 he is confusing it with the Treaty of Versailles which does in fact limit there military numbers and power. if england and france would have invaded immediately upon confirmed violation of the treaty of versailles (pussies), and if my own USA would have not been so damned stubborn (but who can blame us? we were tired of wasting our lives on your euro bullshit) millions upon millions of lives would have been saved.
TheNondiscriminatory 5 months ago
@TheNondiscriminatory Very true.
PkayerZxz2 5 months ago
@TheNondiscriminatory But, on the other hand, if UK and France didn't declare war on Germany after they invaded Poland would millions of lives been spared aswell? It's an interesting thought.
GodwinCarpenter 5 months ago
@GodwinCarpenter yes, and why didn't they declare war on the URSS ? they invaded Poland at the same time Germany did
scepticpatriot 5 months ago
@TheProjektcc Well most likely the Americans just stole the German specs and re designed it little bit.
Blackswordsman6 5 months ago
@Blackswordsman6
don't be silly, part of the reason the joint program was canceled was that each side had their own ideas and requirements that they wanted for a future tank design. This resulted in the creation of two different versions the American one and the German one. But they were both based on the same concept. This caused the cost of the program to sky rocket and become extremely over budget and it was eventually canceled.
You should really get a more mature view of History.
TheProjektcc 5 months ago
@Blackswordsman6 Someone needs to brush up on thier history lest they look anymore stupid in the future. The Americans didn't steal anything. BOth the Leopard and Abrams stem from the 1960's MBT-70, a joint venture between USA and Germany.
MadMilitiaMen 5 months ago
no more gas= no more abrams
invalide014 7 months ago
@invalide014 yeah that wont happen for a long time, plus since its a jet engine, it could run on kerosene, unlike tanks with diesel engines
packr72 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No doubt is a good tank but it can be destroyed:
destroyed Abrams
watch?v=CUvoaD6Vnkg
watch?v=e_l7uMoeqpE
LevTrotsky1917 8 months ago
Comment removed
LevTrotsky1917 8 months ago
With the Abrams as old as it is its still a very great tank. Even if 1 is knocked out there are still about over 9000 produced. Also, the crews have been saved due to the blowout panels. That thing has been through everything compared to the Leopard that has seen very little combat. The US is going to be making a new tank and hopefully it will be even greater than the Abrams.
redmustang03 8 months ago
@redmustang03 the m1a3 abrams, supposedly lighter by 15 tons.
packr72 7 months ago
@packr72, whatever it is if it can take IED's, and Russian ATGM and RPG 29's and surive top attacks then I'll go with it. I bet it still will cost at least 7 to 9 million dollars a tank. I bet they'll probably make at least 2 to 3000 over a 10 year period if there isn't a big war going on at that time.
redmustang03 7 months ago
Why do the Yanks brag about how good they are?
basstrom188 9 months ago 2
@basstrom188 when they're talking about their military it's because they ARE. Deal wit it.
zulok1337 8 months ago
@basstrom188
It's not bragging when it's true.
357223308 8 months ago
there is t-72 on top tens....but where's t-80 or t-90? these are better than t-72!
8900609 9 months ago
And then came the T-90 with Shtora defence system and 1/3 of the Abrams cost. Americans, sorry but you are once again pwned by russian weapons
Eidwlolatrhs 10 months ago
@Eidwlolatrhs Uhm, Russia's T-90 still needs add ons. Abrams has survived hits from RPGs without add ons. Secondly, the T-90 keeps its ammo under the turret and cannot fire on the move. Making it useless. Also, in a simple 10v10 fight with M1 vs T-90, M1 has superior communications. Which means ALL tanks will see one tank's exact target. ;) Or as Tom Clancy put it, "I WISH HE WAS DEAD!"
Tyco200 9 months ago
@Tyco200
Every soviet tank since T-54 can fire on move, whoever told you that they can't, he lied you, kid.
Storing ammo under turret in autoloader and storage, right of autoloader is good thing for conventional tank battles, when you face enemy in frontal attack, because there is 0 chance that round will penetrate and hit the ammo. For asimetrical warfare, that kind of storing is vunerable.
There are M1's knocked out by RPG's. His side armor is also weak.
GvardiyaBY 8 months ago
@GvardiyaBY no dumbass when you surround a turret with ammo the ammo will easily be cooked off and explode sending the whole turret flying. and the only times abrams have been destroyed ARE when it was hit at its WEAKEST points(sides of turret, engine compartment) the abrams is virtually indestructible from the front
hotpocketpoison 8 months ago
Do you know what is basic doctrine of armorcombat? Frontal confrontation with enemy on large open areas. From front side, every modern tank is indestructible. Even your own experts said that about tested examples of T-72B. Not a single tank can survive side hit from modern ATGM or tank round.
Autoloader and storage is perfectly protected for standard armor fighting doctrine, because there is no chance that you will penetrate front armor and that round will end up in autoloader.
GvardiyaBY 8 months ago
In other hand, that way of storing ammo is vunerable in asimetrical warfare, and against IED attacks (every tank is vunerable in that conditions).
Turret is not "sorounded" by ammo, ammo is under it in autoloader, while extra ammo is on right side of tank, next to autoloader, and that stored ammo cause cook-off effect, but in 90% of tests we made, that thing never happens instantly, but after couple of minutes of burning.
GvardiyaBY 8 months ago
@hotpocketpoison - Surround turret? What you talking, guy? Maybe you can learn real facts on tanks than you come back? T-90 have no ammunitions on his turret. Ammunitions located on floor of the hull. Guy said before that for conventional warfare this placement is very protected. Abrams indestructable from front? ...Blue-on-Blue, Abrams have penetrated other Abrams on front, so why can other tank not exactly?
bittemeinrammstein 8 months ago
@bittemeinrammstein which will still be the most catastrophic placement if cooked off, it would undoubtedly kill everyone on board. and there were multiple cases where an abrams was hit directly at its front by sabots from other abrams and failed to penetrate. and the M829A3 is one of the best APFSDS on earth the only better one is KEW-A1(also american) so i honestly wouldnt be surprised if it penetrated, however none ever have.
hotpocketpoison 8 months ago
@hotpocketpoison
Like any tank, the abrams also has weak spots and no, not only sides or back, but also front, areas which are not protected by DU armour layers, are vulnerable to penetration even by moderately outdated RPGs.
vtkrey 8 months ago
@vtkrey the designers put almost all the heavy armor up front, so while their may be weakER parts at the front of the abrams it is still good enough to stop almost any modern round, and i dont know where you got that last part but i think you read the source wrong :P
hotpocketpoison 8 months ago
@hotpocketpoison
While the M1A1 frontal armour averages at more or less 1000mm RHAe (vs HEAT), weakspots, which exsist on the frontal aspect, provide as little as 500mm RHAe armour protection, well within the penetrating capability of an RPG-7 with an PG7VR warhead, given a lucky shot to hit these weakspots, it is likely that an RPG-7 can produce a penetration in the front.
vtkrey 8 months ago
@Tyco200 - Cant fire on the move? You are simply pure moron for that. T-90 survived 7 PG-7 warheads on Dagestan... even T-72B survived ATGM and RPG-7 hits over 9 on Chechnya war. You are simply idiot. You do not seem to understand how ERA is designed so mobility can be saved, and protection at max. You simply do not understand tanks at all...
bittemeinrammstein 8 months ago
@Eidwlolatrhs its cheaper cause its inferior, tanks are expensive, the russians havent figuered out hoe to build an awesome tanks cheap, it cant be done, abrams is better and it has the combat record against other tanks, something the t90 doesnt have
packr72 7 months ago
Jesusu no wonder why US is in Iraq, that thing eats more fuel than they get from texas...
Woffelism 10 months ago
if the m1 is a roll royce, the Leo2 is a Bugatti Veyron =D
TheSoddoma 10 months ago
30% (if not more) of the abram hi-tech systems are israeli made, and are taken from the Merkava mk 4.
now, show me one american TV show that wouldnt put an american tank on the top of the list. the american ego is endless
Randomize12345666 10 months ago
if we combined the Challanger the Abrams and the Leopard we would probably have a floating tank 0-0
jasincl 11 months ago
T90 > M1 Abrams
Volatality 11 months ago
Beaten by a leopard.
MegaGixo 11 months ago 2
It's not that the Abrams is a very good tank just because its American, the Americans just have more to spend on their military budget, the other countries cannot match the military spending of the United States.
dragondisaster 11 months ago
@dragondisaster expect for UK (well they beat the US in the navy) the Most Advanced/Technological ship in the world belongs to the Royal Navy but the Airforce is the most important thing witch is why the US army is so powerful if you have Air Superiorty then you bascilly won :/
jasincl 11 months ago
The M1 abrams is in the same league as the Challenger 1 and Leopard 1. Yet through upgrades it has managed to keep up with the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2. Now the new M1A3 is being developed as America's modern MBT design. Keep the Abrams with the Ch1 and Leo2 and lump the M1A3, Leopard 2A7, and Ch2 together.
MadMilitiaMen 11 months ago
Wait a god dam minute..:)..that guy was shoot in the 50 cal with an rpg and the tank absorbed the damage?? WTF...I want to see how the tank absorbers :) (funny word) a direct well aimed RPG and not that sissy little ones..you know what I mean.
And that goes for other tanks too and then we will see how the armor absorbs the damage :).
24DEX 1 year ago
hm the Leopard is the Greatest Tank in the world but i keep getting replys saying "NUH UUUUUHHHH!!!! THE ABRAMS IS THE GREATEST TANK IN THE WORLD CAUSE ITS AMERICAN UHHHH!!" seriously the USA can be the Most powerful country in the woeld but its not best at everything
jasincl 1 year ago
@jasincl the M1 L2 and C2 are all amazing tanks so stop making trolls attack u
supermorshu 1 year ago
Has the Abrams faced any serious tanks in real combat? Anything other than T-72 and T-80 I mean.(seriously, not bashing the tank, just wondering)
evildeathmonkey1 1 year ago
@evildeathmonkey1 I would say no...because the top tanks in the world right now are all being designed and built by our friends and allies. It's a great tank, and has probably seen the most action in the most places of any of the modern tanks, but it does have a series of liabilities which I believe could be exploited. I would say the greatest strength of the M1 is not in its hardware, but its software -- coupled with battlefield experience.
Kiahsobyk 1 year ago
@evildeathmonkey1 Additionally, the Abrams' logistical requirement (one of the liabilities I mentioned) is so enormous, that if America continues to suffer (pathetically self-inflicted) economic woes, I believe the widespread and efficacious use of the M1 would be endangered. It's phenomenally expensive to engineer and operate, and if the US doesn't have the economic power to keep its main battlers humming, its battlefield power will likely be seriously compromised.
Kiahsobyk 1 year ago
@Kiahsobyk Your comments make sense, thank you. I thought maybe T-90 might have fought the Abrams somehow. Or maybe in some wargames it went up against Leo 2 or Merkava. Also, I never understood that turbine engine.. Must be some advantage to that that outweighs the huge fuel consumption and heat signature? There were fuel shortages when it was designed, so why did they choose this option? Same goes for the hummer I guess. Tactilely it doesn´t make sense.
evildeathmonkey1 1 year ago
@evildeathmonkey1 We wanted a tank more maneuverable and faster than anything in the world, and we got it. At the time. We should all keep in mind the M1 Abrams is 30 years old, now...definitely a very serviceable lifespan. I would easily pit the Challenger 2 against the Abrams...but the Challenger is 20 years younger, with the benefit of all the technological innovations of the 80s and 90s.
Kiahsobyk 1 year ago
@evildeathmonkey1 I would also pit the Leopard against the Abrams with good odds to win...but the great strength of the Abrams is that (so far) the US can deploy and maintain its tank fleet in greater numbers, with the best digital tactical intelligence support. Additionally, American arms are generally employed with an eye to fitting a certain role, rather than (necessarily) out-teching everyone else. The Abrams is for local control/battle...long hitting is generally left to our Air Force
Kiahsobyk 1 year ago
@Kiahsobyk I´m guessing it has something to do with the powerful arms and oil lobbies the US has to deal with.
evildeathmonkey1 1 year ago
And All you russian Fanboys Can Shut It......Russia isnt comeing Back Anytime Soon
SuperPandawan 1 year ago
Yea it may have a big gun, move fast, but I wouldn't want want this tank in my military.
especially the fuel economy, Mobilizing you army somewhere would completely deplete your fuel resources for you entire military. Noth only that the huge sizzling exhaust gives no cover for infantry.
SuperSylar1 1 year ago
Better tanks then the Abrams as of right now...This present moment...:
Leopard 2A6
T-90 M (came out this year i believe..M Verison)
Oplot-M
K-2 South Korean New Tank.
The only reason the Abrams looks good and Americans think its the best is because it went up against 80 year old Iraqi tanks and RPGs from the 1950s....I'd like to see the Abrams withstanding a shot from a Leopard 2A6 or ATGM from a T-90M or withstand a shot from a L55 like the K2 did.
Kallosar 1 year ago
@Kallosar T-90 died out already.....
SuperPandawan 1 year ago
@SuperPandawan
When did it die out lol....T-90 is a pretty damn good balanced tank. Not the best but pretty well balanced. Certainly better then the Abrams.
Kallosar 1 year ago
@Kallosar It died out because russia can not put out Alot Of money for its army right now..And What makes you think The Abrams Is so shitty compared to the other modern tanks...Dont Go preaching around like you know everything...I'd Like to see you Go in a T-90 And challenge and abrams...Your tank would be a empty flaming tomb afterwards..
SuperPandawan 1 year ago
@SuperPandawan
First off. Russia produces quality items not trash like everyone riding the AMerican bandwagon thinks they do...
2. T-90 Advantage as of right now: Relikt ERA (successor of Kontakt-5 ERA...The M829A Series Rounds were made to pierce Russian ERA...No round exists to combat the Relikt ERA and is only on the drawing board.
3. T-90 Mobility. 1200HP Engine with 46 Ton Weight gives it a huge mobility advantage over the Abrams.
4. 125MM Gun with ATGM. French FCS and Israeli Tech
Kallosar 1 year ago
@Kallosar
M829A1 - Defeats First Generation Kontakt-5
M829A2 - Defeats 2nd Generation K5
M829A3 - Defeats Third Generation K5
Russians counter with Relikt ERA resulting in a ERA that is 2x stronger then K5.
A4 is only an idea right now. Hasn't even come out...If a T-90 equipped with Relikt were to face a M1 Abrams the T-90 would win....
Even T-72s equipped with 1st Gen K5 back in the 70s/80s was tested against rounds b4 M829 series came out their armor was not pierced.
Kallosar 1 year ago
@Kallosar Russian Optics= Shit, Shit optics equal Shitty Aim, And what makes you say that that armour cannot be penetrated by m829a Series rounds. Youre trying to make the T90 seem like a perfect tank
SuperPandawan 1 year ago
@SuperPandawan
it isn't the perfect tank...The Leopard 2A6 is much better. The T-90 is just one of the most balanced tanks
Optics ain't shit. The Optics are basically the same as used by the leclerc
Kallosar 1 year ago
@SuperPandawan
Plus....do your research on the M829A Series Rounds...Has a A4 come out? No....Has Relikt come out? Yes....and the T-90s all have Relikt....So what happens when a A3 Inferior shell hits the brand new spanking Relikt Armor? ARmor is not pierced....
Kallosar 1 year ago
British Armour. German Gun.
stewart113 1 year ago 2
@stewart113 glad were all friends
slayersthashit 1 year ago
the L55 120mm Tungsten rounds are 2x the penetration of the M256's 120mm M829-b DU rounds
Leathlord 1 year ago
@Leathlord du has twice the penetrating power of tungsten and currently the the m829a3 is the best ke penetrator on the planet
packr72 6 months ago
No one ever remembers that while the m256 120mm L/44 may be a German designed gun, its an American made round (the m829) that makes the Abrams so lethal
coolguyii13579 1 year ago
i used to like the tank, but after discovering that it has a ridiculous looking turret (from above), I stopped!
and who uses MBT anymore? Grab a Javelin!
faokim 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@faokim
"and who uses MBT anymore?"
Most countries.
MokomaSusi 1 year ago
M1A3 has some big shoes to fill
MadMilitiaMen 1 year ago
its a nice tank .. although the armour is of brittish design ( chobbum ) the gun is german ( rheinmettal 120mm gun ) i dont think the yanks realise that 2 of the most important factors of that tank firepower and protection are not yankee made .. the europeans made that tank to what it is its just that the americans used it and not us ..
artacania 1 year ago
WHAT??? LEOPARD 2 THE BEST EVER!!!! GERMAN OF CORSE !!! HA HA HA!!
cristiandan06 1 year ago
@cristiandan06 The Abrams and Leopard actually are almost alike they even share the same main gun
jmig3 1 year ago
@jmig3
No. Abrams uses the old Leopard L44 gun.
Leopard 2 now is equipped with the L55.
natsplit 1 year ago
@natsplit K thanks for the useful info :)
jmig3 1 year ago
Greatest Ever Tanks - Leopard 2 (1)
Greatest Ever Tanks - Leopard 2 (1)
Greatest Ever Tanks - Leopard 2 (1)
hundturken2 1 year ago
Ya gonna get a heat seeking missile right up your jaxi. Not very nice! XD
warobsessive 1 year ago
Copy from German KING Tank Leoapard 2
PicRiza1 1 year ago 2
"youre gonna get a heat seeking missile right up your jacksie!"
awesome
cas343 1 year ago
I dont understand why the Abrams is always put ahead of the Challenger 2 in these sorts of documentaries. In terms of losses more Abrams have been 'killed' than Challenger 2's and the only Challenger loss came from friendly fire. Furthermore, Challenger 2 has roughly similar Digital equipment and exactly the same gun. Anyone care to explain?
TheTeej08 1 year ago 6
@TheTeej08
The Challenger doesn't have the same gun as the Abrams. The Challenger has a rifled cannon as opposed to the Abrams (and most other modern MBT:s) which has a smoothbore cannon. This has to do with choice of ammunition. The Abrams fire HEAT rounds against light armour. If the round is spinning it would disrupt the shape charge in the HEAT round making it ineffective. The Challenger fires HESH rounds and it doesn't matter if they spin so they can use a rifled cannon. Better? Who knows?
albinkato 1 year ago
@albinkato Challengers rifled gun is being replaced with a 120mm smoothbore in order to use standardised NATO ammunition used in the Abrams, Leopard 2 etc. And if memory serves it is very similar if not exactly the same as the Abrams main gun.
TheTeej08 1 year ago
@TheTeej08 no the Abrams is a L44 it's getting the L55. same ammo but longer barrel. High weight faster the rounds comes out also so better penetration power.
starknight97 1 year ago
@albinkato Is the CH2's L30A1 120mm is far better then the L44 on the m1a2 sep. Longest shot ever made is a CH. Is it better you decided. A rifled barrel wares out faster and costs more too make. You lose a bit power though the rifling itself meaning just a bit slower round(faster the the m1a2 120 mm L44 M256 smoothbore as the ch2 l30a is really = to a L55 barrel.) then the German L55. Rounds cost more too make as less are produced and designed too work with the rifling.
starknight97 1 year ago
@TheTeej08
Reason the the M1 being taken out more is because there are a lot more M1's present. That counts for something.
EliteGhost001 10 months ago
@TheTeej08 you can have to cars that go the same speed, but if one is an toyata and the other a ferrari the ferrari is better.
EAmaster123 10 months ago
@TheTeej08
Barely over 500 Chally 2's have been made. M1 has 8500+. M1 wiped the floor with the T-72 in both gulf wars, literately taking out thousands of them with casualties less than triple digits. Chally 2 saw little action in both gulf wars, that meaning why they have virtually no losses in combat. M1 is more technologically advanced...slightly. Chally 2 uses a rifled gun which has better accuracy and range. M1's smooth-bore has better damage due to higher muzzle velocity from the gun.
MrSquaky 9 months ago
@MrSquaky "m1 is more technolgically advanced" its armour was designed in the uk and its the original gun was a license built copy of a royal ordance gun so to say it is more technologically advanced is a insult it also has less range than challenger and in both wars although the challenger were less in number they still went up against enemy tanks and threats rpg,soviet tanks and the challenger had no fatalities
budbud619 9 months ago
@budbud619
Challenger 2 faced a significantly lower number of enemy's to the Abrams, why you think the causality rates was virtually second to none. M1A2 Abrams SEP is probably the most tech advanced tank today. Except maybe for the Leopard 2, I don't recall much information on that tank.
MrSquaky 9 months ago
@MrSquaky casuality rates were lower simply because its a better tank a few abrams did get knocked out by rpgs and shitty old soviet tanks granted there were more abrams but challenger did go up against the same threats and none were knocked out face the facts
budbud619 8 months ago
@budbud619 dont even try to pull that shit.the challenger2 was NEVER in anywhere NEAR the magnitude of combat the abrams was in.comparing the combat record of the challenger to the abrams is like comparing a boat that was damaged traveling through a hurricane(abrams)and one that was less damaged going down a gentle stream(challenger2)and saying the 2nd one is better JUST because it took less damage and ignorantly dodging the fact that the 1st one went through 100x the hell that the 2nd one did!!
hotpocketpoison 8 months ago
@hotpocketpoison " NEVER the magnitude" are you a retard they were fighting on a front no more than fifty miles at away at times there were less of them we know that but they went up against exactly the same as the abrams on a smaller scale and the stats speak for themselves you use no facts or knowledge for any of your claims and comparing these tanks to a stream makes you sound like a redneck with a mental illness
budbud619 8 months ago
@budbud619 look up the battle of 73 easting, there are many other examples such as these, the chally was NEVER outnumbered like the abrams was in battles such as this. and maybe if you were using you brain you could read my analogy correctly and not IGNORE it, because it really does prove why people think the chally is better(when it isnt)
hotpocketpoison 7 months ago
how is the leopard better than the m1 abrams?
eba2294 1 year ago
@eba2294 lighter. just as powerful, doesn't run as hot
vk45de 1 year ago
@eba2294 Everythings better whith the leo 2. Just everything.
hundturken2 1 year ago
@hundturken2 Wrong it armor even in the a7 is thinner then the m1a2sep armor.
starknight97 1 year ago
@starknight97 Totaly wrong. Leoparad 2a5 is even thicker then SEP
hundturken2 1 year ago
@hundturken2 Keep dreaming Estimated levels of protection for the Leopard 2a6(a7) range fto 920 - 940 (1100 a7)RHAe on the turret, 620 (700+a7)RHAe on the glacis against heat. M1a2sep (frontal turret) 1,320–1,620 millimeters (52–64 in) of RHAe versus HEAT (and other chemical energy rounds) and 940–960 mm (37–38 in) versus kinetic energy penetrators.
starknight97 1 year ago
@hundturken2 Though the 120mm L55 gun is fast then the the m1a2 L44. So depending on round type it may Break the armor make it a moot point. In sort it will not be as good in urban fight surprise rpg 29 attack. But the m1a2sep and Challenger 2 have the best armor for this. Though the T-90 weaker armor has 2 to 3 active defenses against that making it the best for urban warfare.
starknight97 1 year ago
@hundturken2 typical from someone whose country uses the leo 2
eba2294 1 year ago
@eba2294 speed, range, firepower.
starknight97 1 year ago
all they need to do is find a way to change the engine to a diesel and they wont need all the fuckin fuel they need now.
CookieMonzta1995 1 year ago
Abrams has combat proven itself same way as maxim machin gun proved itself by moving down hordes of stone/bronze/iron age level natives ;).
GeneralCalculus 1 year ago
Wow! Brawl made it to the list!!!!!
bononcrusher2 1 year ago
ok just wait until the tank passes then kill off the supply convoy so it cant move, the hit it whit heavy artillery.
Frippster123 1 year ago
The only modern, Western tank which can beat it is the Leopard 2. Even the Challey wouldn't beat it. Only flaw, the tank is a gas sucking monster XD But yea... This tank is nearly undestroyable.
Tyco200 1 year ago
You are all idiots... The Abrams could even beat the Challey if at must. Though the Leopard is a better tank, the Abrams still owns the battlefield...
Tyco200 1 year ago
take the governor off the engine- and the track will melt.
patrikasLTL 1 year ago
"a state of the art tank", "thats seen the U.S through many wars"
right first off.. the tank was first made in 1980.. 30 years later, get to the drawing board yankee fellas
second "seen them through wars"? oh thats right the iraqi conflicts.. well look how the latest one has turned out.. fkn disaster
oldmanwithers1 1 year ago
US mostly spend on Airforce and Navy. Their tank should be just 'good enough'.
unixnewb87 1 year ago
Reasons why the M1 performed better than the iraqi T72:
1st: unlike the Abrams iraqi T72s lacked modern ammuntion. T72`s rounds were all made in the 70s
2nd:T72s lacked thermal/nightvision sights
3rd: Iraqi T72 lacked ERA, like the kontack-5 wich is already eqquiped in the russian T72B
4rd: All Iraqi t72s had the so called monkey model gun wich had almost half of the range of the original one
5th:iraqi tank crews were less trained that american ones.
stalingradComando 2 years ago
beautiful tank still my favorite!
369NICK963 2 years ago
"a single Abrams can take on one or more of any other tank in a battlefield and still win "
-And they call these `experts´?
The Abrams was a huge leap forward for the U.S. armored troops, but it's not any better to any other current Western MBT.
I really do wonder why the U.S. just HAVE to have the best, even when they do not have.
ArmaFennica 2 years ago 23