It gets the element of surprise by shooting enemy tanks at ranges they cannot achieve. Next, the strategy of it "running off by itself to fight other tanks" is BULLSHIT, because it DOESNT have any other tanks to fight anymore. And again, has NOTHING to do with the tank.
@BandNerdcp "It gets the element of surprise by shooting enemy tanks at ranges they cannot achieve."
The M1's gunnery computer cannot calculate a range beyond 4000m. That's about 1000m short of the effective range of the Soviet 9M119M Refleks (AT-11 Sniper), which penetrates 950mm of RHA Steel, and about 4000m short of the effective *direct-fire* range of the L31 HESH round fired by the Challenger 2 --- as well as the Chieftain Mk.III that Iran operates 200 of.
@BandNerdcp "Next, the strategy of it "running off by itself to fight other tanks" is BULLSHIT, because it DOESNT have any other tanks to fight anymore. And again, has NOTHING to do with the tank. "
Then why were no rounds other than HEAT and Sabot for the M1's 120mm gun until the late 1990s?
And why were the efforts field other rounds so weak? The Canister does the same thing as the M1's machine guns, HE-OR is actually APHE, and MPAT is HEAT with an added anti-helicopter capability.
From the very start of this video, it is completely wrong. The M1 abrams IIRC, it can fire all types of ammo, but if not it I know for a fact it fires canister. Secondly, who gives a fuck about rounds that never went into service, that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TANK. Next, its only lost more because it is deployed more than all the other tanks.. although i dont know where you get your info, since you dont cite sources. and since WHEN is ANY tank stealthy?
@BandNerdcp "The M1 abrams IIRC, it can fire all types of ammo, but if not it I know for a fact it fires canister. Secondly, who gives a fuck about rounds that never went into service, that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TANK."
See the firepower chapter. Or maybe you can't comprehend what "overview" means?
@BandNerdcp "Next, its only lost more because it is deployed more than all the other tanks.. although i dont know where you get your info, since you dont cite sources."
The USMC's 200 M60A1s destroyed over 100 tanks, and the 180 Challenger 1s destroyed 300 tanks in the Gulf. Combined, they officially had less protection, mobility, and firepower than the M1, yet they suffered only 2 losses --- to mines, with no casualties.
14 M1s were lost, with 21 casualties, including a KIA.
@BlacktailDefense "14 M1s were lost, with 21 casualties, including a KIA."
1 KIA out of 14 M1's being lost? That tells a lot about crew survivability. And with only 35% of the total crew members being wounded out of destroyed tanks, I would say that isn't bad at all.
@franknbeans4761 Not when the only tanks they've ever faced were export-model T-55s, T-62s, T-72s, and make-believe T-72s. A refrigerator and a cardboard box are the same shape, but do NOT have the same composition --- the same goes with ComBloc export-model weapons, which is why their manufacturers call them "Monkey Models".
@franknbeans4761 "1 KIA out of 14 M1's being lost? That tells a lot about crew survivability."
Especially when all of the ammunition that Iraq used was more than 20 years old, with the notable exception of the rounds that Iraqi T-72M1s, Saddams, and Asad Babils used against the M1 --- which were TPFSDS rounds with *Aluminum* projectiles.
@BlacktailDefense Doesn't matter, some of these were fratricide. But it also doesn't matter either, a destroyed tank is a destroyed tank. If only 1 man was killed out of 14 tanks being destroyed, it says a lot about crew survivability.
@franknbeans4761 Abrams is indeed good tank to ride in, crews normally survive hits. this has been proved by several friendly fire incidents. the only problem is a destroyed tank is a destroyed tank. while crew survivability is something desirable, if the tank gets felled and burns even if the crew survives, its still a tragedy that can cost a battle in a conventional war scenario
@Pcordero87 True, I was more so seeing his reasoning behind what he had to say about it and I am still not sure how reliable his statistics were.
Losing tanks is usually what causes you to lose the battle, but returning tank crews to combat with viable experience and hard learned lessons would usually allow you to win the war.
@BlacktailDefense There has been a lot of internet chatter relating you and Sparks. You should set some things straight rather than associating yourself with him by supporting what he says.
Yeah, Imma gonna have to say...No. You have made a LOT of statements here without backing them up with, oh...what do you call them...Oh yeah: FACTS or NUMBERS. And by facts I mean the fact that you spew a lot without citing any sources, leading us to believe that this is, in fact, your opinion and NOT a reflection of reality at all. So yeah, research first before you embarrass yourself further.
Yeah it had more losses than the Coalition tanks only because there were far more Abrams than any other tank in either Gulf Wars. So when you have more of it it's far more likely to get shot at than other tanks. Also every tank will always be vulnerable to AT armed infantry.
All this time, you posted videos about how your are a concerned citizen of the US. But now with the new YouTube layout, your page says "Käyttäjän BlacktailDefense kanava" which is Finnish.
That is such bullshit. You aren't American and you just despise the US. How weird.
it funny how it says that the M1 only uses an AT round. it fires an a HEAT, DU, and shot canister round. the HEAT and shot canister rounds have destroyed buildings and annihilated infantry, but only the Depleted Uranium round is used for anti-tank purposes. therefore 66% of its ammunition type are dedicated to anti structure and anti infantry porposes. its a higher % if you count the Coaxial MG and the two on the roof of the turret. this video is bullshit from the start.
The amount of Bullshit I saw in this "video" is overwhelming. Oh well. One idiot on YouTube can't change hard facts: The M1 Abrams is by far the best tank in the world.
@BlacktailDefense I doubt I'm supposed to trust a random YouTube poster that has nothing but bold red letters with points that have no backing whatsoever when thousands of military workers, historians, and enthusiasts say it's the best tank in the world. Your points are all countered by the Abrams' real life track record: as a near-invincible tank that completely raped foreign tanks and terrorists and lost more tanks due to friendly fire and scuttling than enemy fire. Your videos are bullshit
@gameragodzilla "Your points are all countered by the Abrams' real life track record: as a near-invincible tank that completely raped foreign tanks and terrorists and lost more tanks due to friendly fire and scuttling than enemy fire."
WHICH points? You can't prove my claims are untrue if you don't address them, so you're still hiding from the issue.
@BlacktailDefense Everything. You have cited absolutely no sources (except for a dictionary definition), and all of your points about the M1 Abrams being inadequate, bad etc. have absolutely no basis in fact. Why don't you first tell me your sources because so far, ALL of your claims are bullshit. Look at the M1 Abrams in real life, and then look at it in your video. Big difference.
@BlacktailDefense This was a response to ALL of your videos. I didn't feel like posting on all of them. And my response was to ALL of your points, because answering each one individually would take forever.
Every single one of your articles date to BEFORE the Gulf War... BEFORE the Abrams was combat-tested. So, you cite outdated articles, and thus, your are, beyond all reasonable doubt, full of shit.
@gameragodzilla It's useless. I have already pointed out how out of date his facts/points are, how many double standards he has, how biased he is, & after I do it; he will avoid the question.
Don't even bother with it because you are dealing with someone who has no grasp on how wars are fought, what the current vehicles are like, & the truth.
Even his sources are usually blogs & random threads of one guy with no credibility saying something, or him making his own interpretations. It's pathetic
@franknbeans4761 Fair enough. Seems like all he's trying to accomplish with these videos is to troll us, with noncredible or outdated sources spouting total BS.
Nevertheless, it doesn't matter what some random Youtube War Expert says. The facts speak for themselves: The M1 Abrams is the best tank in the world. Others may equal it (like the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2) but none surpasses it.
@gameragodzilla It's a troll on the largest scale I have ever seen. He uploaded some 172 videos (slide shows) about that are a testament to his stupidity. The craziness in some people...
I would say no tank is number 1, but there's a handful of tanks that are all in the same category & all have different compromises that make them good in their own aspect.
So for Blacktail to go as far as this, with the mentality that he has is just jaw dropping & astonishing.
@franknbeans4761 True, no tank is number 1. Individually, I'd say that every modern main battle tank are relatively equal. Some might have a slight advantage in one area and a slight disadvantage in another area, but overall, all the MBTs are very badass. The only reason why I say the M1 Abrams is the best is because while other modern MBTs number in the hundreds, the M1 Abrams number in the thousands (8000 to be exact). Other than larger numbers, there's not that much difference.
@gameragodzilla I agree, you can look at the exact tank itself, & that is important, but you also need to consider the number built & in use.
Combat experience is also a factor. The Abrams saw combat in 1991, 2001, & 2003 giving it around 11-12 combat years. Along with large, realistic training operations around the world. Even if the enemy they faced wasn't very capable, it still saw years of service under live fire which is something no real current MBT can say other than maybe the Merkava.
@franknbeans4761 the russian's are constantly engaged in Chechenya since the '90s with infantry, mechanized, motorized and armoured units which include the t-72s of various models, t-80s and the t-90s in serious guerilla conflict and with the latest conventional war in Georgia, that gives their tanks and crews this exp you say they don't have.
there's also the 5 years of war in and in the neighborhood of my country from 1990-1995 that included t-55s and m-84s.
@MatoVuc If I could of included more, I would of. Just for the sake of explanation I decided not to. That is why I only briefly mentioned the Merkava Mk 4.
But the T-90 has not seen battle. There are talks of it being with the field army that went to Georgia but I still cannot find anything on it.
But yes, it isn't like the Abrams has an unbelievable track record, it just has been under fire for a decade. Which is something that can't be dismissed. That is all.
@franknbeans4761 Mk 4? that's pretty close to your t-90 argument, since i suppose you're taking into account all the combat the previous Merkavas saw into it's combat record.
much the same could be said about the t-90 in relation to thet-72, of which the model B and BM were engaged in Georgia and again, the t-72B/BM, the T-80s and t-90s have seen hard combat in much worse guerrilla terrain and sucking up more RPG hits than IEDs.
@franknbeans4761 yes. the Iraqi insurgents use more IEDs as opposed to the Chechen rebels preferring RPGs.
there is a note in the wikipedia article on the t-90 (note 40 Alexander Pashin. "Russian Army Operations and Weaponry During Second Military Campaign in Chechnya"...) that specifically mentions the performance (protection) of the t-90 that saw action in Dagestan.
"In the Kadari zone one T-90 was hit by seven RPG anti-tank rockets[8] but remained in action. "
@MatoVuc I really wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source. Someone probably took the trial in which a T-90 was struck with 7 RPG's & was still able to drive. Because that happened but not in combat. Which unit was using the T-90 if it occurred? How many were there? Which engagement & which are of Dagestan?
The Abrams still came under RPG fire in Iraq & Afghanistan numerous times too.
@franknbeans4761 read the article that is used as the actual source. Note 40!
there is a reference to the tests, but this is a reference to actual combat.
from the real article, not wiki:
"The use of T-90S tanks in Dagestan deserves mention. A group of these vehicles consisting of 8 to 12 units according to different sources was supposed to be delivered to India. Following a sharp aggravation of the situation in the Caucasus, however, the tanks were transferred to Dagestan..."
@MatoVuc "... In the Kadari zone one T-90 was hit by seven RPG anti-tank rockets8 but remained in action. This indicates that with regular equipment T-90S is the best protected Russian tank, especially if Shtora and Arena defensive protection systems are integrated in it."
h t t p: // web . archive . org/ web / 20090129141108/h t t p: // mdb.cast.ru / mdb / 3-2002 / ac / raowdsmcc /
@MatoVuc I am just saying that what Bitnik & others have told me, it wasn't in combat. That is all I have heard & I certainly find it hard to come by combat experience of the T-90. Even that entire article only had it briefly mentioned.
You never hear numerous stories about the T-90 in Chechnya or Georgia. If you can easily find it then I would like to know but otherwise I couldn't really consider it having an actual combat track record on the scale of the Abrams.
@franknbeans4761 well, i said i wasn't sure how hard it would be to find more recent and more detailed records, seeing as I'm not russian and they do seem to keep their lips tightly shut about any details of their combat performance of practically any weapon system.
@MatoVuc I did find a couple sites talking about Daegestan but that is all that they mentioned about it's history. I am not sure if they would of just used it as an "attacking" tank, while other tanks like the T-62 were used for occupation. I could see that, but I just cannot find any other talk of it being used in combat. I will keep looking and let you know if I find it but I really don't think it has any more combat experience.
@MatoVuc ......But I would have to say that the war in Chechnya, especially from 2000 on wards was not as intensive as in Iraq. The area was much larger & there were many more irregulars.
I was more so referring to the fact that the fact that the Abrams was continuously used by one country for that long & didn't have any major problems with it.
@franknbeans4761 this is very much alike to the russian experience with the t-72B/BM, t-80/U/UM and the t-90, they have been used for over a decade.
the M1 went from A0, to A1, to A2, then got the TUSK kit and now is going to the A3.
if the Abrams had no serious deficiencies as you say, it wouldn't have to go through all those upgrades (technological evolution comes from necessity).
as for major problems, it has them (weight!, engine), but the US have been able to work around them THUS FAR
@franknbeans4761 calm down? you mean the "thus far" part? i was just stressing with the Caps since there is no underline in the comments here.
my point is that compensation is not the same as solution of problems, which could end up being an issue when such compensation is hard or impossible to do.
@MatoVuc You just seemed like you were freaking out. Apart from the thus far comment.
I would say that in all, the Abrams is limited by fuel consumption & weight, which obviously hasn't proved that big of a problem for all of it's operators.
Do you honestly think the Abrams has that big of problems that should have 30-40 (?) videos dedicated to it? Or that it is one of the worst tanks in active service?
If you do then alright then but all I am saying is that it's not those things.
@franknbeans4761 let's put it this way. I don't think it's terrible, but at best terribly mediocre, particularly in it's generation.
unlike most other tanks however, it is extremely overhyped and overpraised (sometimes undeservedly so), which is why people have negative feelings about it and there are glaring issue that have been rightfully pointed out such as the non necessity for the gas turbine, the lack of non-antiarmour munitions, the exposed APU, etc.
@MatoVuc The only reason for the GTE is to make it function well in all environments. No matter what. Whereas diesel engines take a very long time to start up. Not that I am standing up for it just providing insight.
atk . com/capabilities_defense/cs_ms_w_tgs_120ammo . asp
I wouldn't say the ammo is terrible, but it needs improvement.
I also wouldn't say the Abrams is the best tank but most likely top 5. Maybe top 3 but that is debatable.
I agree 110% on the hype people make on it though.
@franknbeans4761 functions well in all environments? it's one of the most sensitive power units to adverse conditions due (without filters the sand eats away the blades very quickly), being a turbine it takes a while to get running (unless i missed something).
Diesel tank engines are essentially oversized car/truck engines, hence much easier maintenance, they have no trouble with high or low temperatures and are now able to run on both diesel and petrol. (...)
@MatoVuc No way. Blacktail said that diesel engines on tanks can just start up with ease & go no matter what. That is not the case at all. It takes 2-3 minutes to start up a diesel engine then 5-10 minutes, depending on the weather, to actually warm it up. In very cold conditions it takes as high as 20 minutes to fully warm up whereas GTE can start up in 60-90 seconds. Diesel engines on tanks are certainly not like cars.
@franknbeans4761 if you say so. i know that the nazi tanks would freeze up in the winter, but they were petrol and they actually had to light fires under them to start them up, but i didn't hear about the russian diesels suffering the same.
as for the start up, i'll take your word for it, but I've seen videos of the t-55 here on youtube starting up, and it starts in a matter of seconds and gets moving about a minute after so...
@MatoVuc It all depends on if it's warm or not. If the vehicle was just on & running, it will start up right away. If it is off for a certain period of time, then it is fine.
I know Russia has a special torch that helps warm up their engines in winter. It can be used 10 times before it is spent. I think it's called an AFP or something like that.
@MatoVuc In that video it too 1:09 for it to get going, which is fine, but what I was referring to is actually getting the engine warmed up & suitable for combat. And in that video the weather was quite nice & wouldn't have any real affect on it. This difference is very small in good weather but much larger in cold weather due to a piston engine requiring more lubricants & oils in all of its pistons.
@MatoVuc But like I said, it can still start up in about 2-3 minutes (at most) but it takes awhile for it to actually get warmed up to usable conditions. But like I also said, this is a GTE's only advantage.
@franknbeans4761 the issue with the ammo, as Blacktail has rightfully pointed out is that it's all absolutely anti-tank oriented and has no anti-infantry or anti-structure munitions.
to contrast that with the russian 125 gun, they have APFSDS, HEAT and HEFrag rounds.
the germans have developed a HE round for the 120mm smoothbore and the isrealis are/have developed smart munitions for their merkavas, but the M1 doesn't have them.
@MatoVuc I know he addressed the problems with the ammunition already, but I do have to say that experience in Iraq & Afghanistan have shown this clearly isn't a large limitation. With the M830A1 round that is. It may not be as good as other rounds of it's class but it has fared alright. Something that wouldn't of been proven without it's combat history like I said earlier.
@franknbeans4761 yeah, but as you said, it's not nearly as good and considering how easy, cheap and no real R&D it would require to give it an HE round, not doing so is at best questionable.
The fact that there are flaws with the M1 isn't a shock. Wars change, technology improves. It's a fact of life. Look at WWII, there were new tanks and prototypes all the time from every country.
New tanks could be designed and implimented all the time, the only issue is money and need. We just don't fight wars against strong opponents anymore. Pointing out flaws in a vehicle that serves its purpose perfectly isn't really necessary..
@9700ghost "The fact that there are flaws with the M1 isn't a shock."
It's not that there are flaws in the M1's design that are the issue --- it's the sheer number and severity of them.
"We just don't fight wars against strong opponents anymore."
...until we do again. Having second-rate equipment will come back to bite us in the ass when it does, and this has happened before; read about the Torpedo Scandal of World War 2.
@BlacktailDefense "It's not that there are flaws in the M1's design that are the issue --- it's the sheer number and severity of them."
If that is so, then even a force like Saddam's should of inflicted much heavier casualties than anyone claimed. I mean, you must have to question some of your beliefs when even other independent researchers put the Abrams in the top 5 tanks in the world. It's just puzzling that you always go to such extremes.
@franknbeans4761 "I mean, you must have to question some of your beliefs when even other independent researchers put the Abrams in the top 5 tanks in the world."
If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking. For example, how much research do these 'independent researchers' actually do? If they did their homework, they'd know better than to put a tank into a Top 10 that ate all of it's spare engines by 2004, and has pyrophoric armor with more radioactivity than fallout.
@BlacktailDefense Everyone isn't thinking alike. I never said they all think it's number one but everyone considers it somewhere close to the top.
And a lot of people have done their homework, that's why Saudi Arabia, Egypt, & Australia bought it, & it doesn't matter if they are US allies, the same could be said for most Russian equipment.
If it was so incredibly bad like you say, then it wouldn't of achieved such astounding victories no matter what. Regardless of the enemy.
@franknbeans4761 I don't know about Egypt and Saudi, but Australia didn't seem to do their homework, though. The first M1s that arrived in their port immediately plagued by transport problem from their heavy weight - which is also said to be problematic for Australia road bridges and, presumably, their road infrastructure in general. If this is any indication, one will wonder how Australia is going to use them...
@2205Razors Perhaps, it all just depends. The Abrams did fare well in Iraq (terrain wise) so I am sure it would do well in the expanses of Australia. But yes, the weight would of course be a problem for long distance hauls but I highly doubt Australia is that incompetent with it.
@franknbeans4761 Well, they have to. Otherwise, the taxpayers will be VERY angry if those M1s are still stuck in the port until today. I haven't heard how they solved the problem though, but last I heard, they are considering about changing rail gauge and road transport is considered highly unfavorable. Whatever it is, it seems going to cost a lot.
Sure, M1s will do fine in the desert part of Australia as long as their logistics can keep up. I personally still think it's a stupid buy, tho...
@franknbeans4761 ... I mean, SINGAPORE can support Leo2s no problem, and even have them upgraded with AMAP - and don't tell me that those are inferior to M1s.
@franknbeans4761 Hold on... Greece? And M1? I don't see any news about it. Source, please? If it's true, then considering Greece's economical condition, I'd say that they are prolly rather *pressured* to buy it rather than making sensible judgment.
Well, 7 M1 operators, 2 are 'influenced', and 1 is possibly 'pressured'. Oh, and Saudi is going to acquire Leo2s as well - that country seems to collect weapon from *everywhere* like a hobby. Leo still has more operators worldwide, though.
That is the first article I can find. I read about it first on Military Photos . net. Greece is literally getting them for free but paying for them to be upgraded upon delivery.
But even then, a lot of Soviet equipment was influenced, pressured, or forced so that is not a viable argument.
@franknbeans4761 Uh... actually, I looked through that page to confirm if Australia indeed has problem with their M1s on port. As you can see, the forum post that states Aussie's M1s 'have arrived' is followed *later* by the post saying that the M1s 'got stranded', if you go by the posting time. Also, the links in the forum post that refer back to the source confirm it. Bottom line, I haven't seen the resolution, if that's what you want to show me.
@2205Razors Well yes, they didn't have rail transport for their tanks.
I am not sure if you think they are still stuck at the port or what though. But it is obviously a problem that can be solved relatively quickly. Especially when considering the "Australian Land Trains" that roam their roads.
But the weight of the variant the Australians got is still fairly comparable in terms of the Leopard 2. Most bridges cannot support these tanks so this isn't a surprise to me.
@franknbeans4761 I don't think that Australians are *that* incompetent to let those behemots sit on port from 2006 until today. I'm implying that the M1s already show problem in the port, and it raises question on how it will be used effectively in Australia.
The stated weight of Australian M1s, according to the same link you gave me, is 68t. Leo2A4 (the one Singapore has, unupgraded) weighs 52t empty. A5 weighs 57t, and A6 weighs close to 58t. That's a huge weight difference to M1 to my eye...
@franknbeans4761 ... And if we go by the statement in the same article that Australian road bridges has a threshold of 50t, given Leo's weight that is much closer to that threshold, it is probably easier to work around than M1.
Again, going back to my first statement: I think Australia didn't to do their homework right when deciding to buy M1, given that there are other alternatives that are easier to work with. Therefore, I have suspicion that they could be strong-armed to buy it.
@2205Razors If you want to go in depth with it, it depends.
There is no saying whether or not the bridges in the whole of the countries are capable of supporting them. And they obviously were able to solve the problem. Maybe they planned on taking a more direct route but the bridges didn't permit.
And even then, the didn't have any rail access, which is the most efficient & widely used means of transporting armor within a country.
There literally isn't enough information on it to make.......
@2205Razors ......a complete statement about it. I would say the Abrams fits Australia's vastness fairly well. At least maybe a little more than other tanks, it is true the Leopard 2 may seem like a better choice, but the Abrams has the advantage of having it's "child diseases" worked out of it. Much like how India chose the AH-64D over the Mi-28N. But that's another story. The Leopard 2 is more widely used, but has never seen real combat experience in a long, sustained, advance.
@franknbeans4761 India decides it through an open tender, so it's their decision. However, did Australia even do open tender when deciding on M1? And I personally think that M1's *gas turbine* is a *disease* since it's a fuel hog - and equivalent-power diesel engine has existed, which much economic fuel consumption, even. Why hasn't it gone away?
The only advantage it has over diesel engines is it is fully ready to go 60-90 seconds after start up. Whereas diesel tanks take roughly 3 minutes to start & 10 minutes to fully warm up (up to 20 minutes in very cold temperatures).
Maybe the US wanted a tank for all environments. Who knows.
I was merely making the point that the Abrams is much more broken in when compared to most tanks. That is all.
@2205Razors ......And, although other tanks like the Leopard 2 are much more widely used, they haven't seen any viable combat or fought a war that would require it to go through large trials. The Abrams has proved it's mettle in combat, which is appealing, so it isn't that surprising that they chose it.
@franknbeans4761 Battle record is good to have around, but I think nothing is more valid than a trial and comparison by the buyer; in other words: open tender. Battle record only says how good the tank is when used under a certain condition, with a certain tactic. However, trial can expose how the tank will actually fare under the buyer's conditions, tactics, and military doctrine. Different tactic can favor different kind of tank. If battle record is all that counts, everyone would be using M4
@2205Razors Well, that wasn't the point I was getting out.
Any vehicle could perform slightly well in trials, but trials are still fairly limited. It exposes some problems but not to a truly effective extent. Like how I mentioned the Mi-28N losing to the AH-64D. The Mi-28N did lose in many qualifications but it also wasn't a proven system that has gone through many individual upgrades (there's obviously more than the M1A1 & M1A2). With a tank that has only done trials, it isn't fully reliable.
@2205Razors .....But even then, that doesn't fully solve the procurement decision.
It would make sense in terms of costs to buy an American weapon for some of the countries due to their procurement of other American systems. Like the Australians with the Hornet (& much more), Saudis with the F-15 (among others), & so on.
The bang for the buck cannot be matched.
But the fact that the Abrams has been operating fairly well in a desert combat zone for years makes it an ideal candidate for them.
@BlacktailDefense And you even make the point of the Abrams using DU in it's armor making it bad. But what about the countries that have no DU in it's armor? They are still the Abrams & since you consider all variants of the M113 in your videos then that is just a double standard.
M1's are made of depleted uranium, and so are their tank rounds. This works quite well for raw defense and penetration. The only real flaw of defense is the turret; made instead, of steel. So a round to the turret causes flakes of metal to shred the ammunition within and blow the entire tank.
@Account0997 "M1's are made of depleted uranium, and so are their tank rounds."
Only the M1's APFSDS rounds are made of DU, and the only DU in it's armor is a layer of the metal in it's turret. The rest is all either Laminated Steel, or RHA Steel.
@Account0997 "So a round to the turret causes flakes of metal to shred the ammunition within and blow the entire tank."
The M1's ammunition is stowed in an armored, firewalled storage compartment inside the turret bustle. It's designed to prevent the ammo from exploding into the Fighting Compartment.
Problem is though, it doesn't work anymore. The compartment was designed to muffle the blast of exploding 105mm rounds --- all M1s still in service use 120mm rounds, with heavier propellant charges.
"yet it's compat [great grammar there, BTW] results fall well short of it's predecessors and contemporaries"
WHICH contemporary tank has a better real life combat record than the Abrams? The Abrams that utterly annihilated Russian designed Iraqi tanks in two wars?
Oh wait, I'm sorry. If it's in the US Military inventory and it's not the M113 (a thinly-armored, minimally-armed APC from the 1950s), then it sucks. My mistake.
@JimRaynor55 "WHICH contemporary tank has a better real life combat record than the Abrams?"
A combat record isn't a physical capability.
"The Abrams that utterly annihilated Russian designed Iraqi tanks in two wars?"
They were Monkey Models, watered-down copies of Monkey Models (the "Saddam"), and watered-down copies of *those* (the "Asad Babil") --- the rest were obsolete, and were seldom maintained correctly. Defeating equipment this weak is nothing to brag about.
@BlacktailDefense Of course they were monkey models. Abrams still dominated them. And don't move the goal posts. You brought up "combat results." Now you're trying to dismiss those same combat results. The Abrams has proven more in REAL combat than any other tank out there.
@JimRaynor55 REAL combat against INFERIOR and underequiped opponents. Basically, it is the tank equivalent of the high school bully, picking on weaker opponents without ever confronting an opponent that can actually fight back properly, even though there are many out there.
this is not proof of how good you are, only how good you can pick your opponents.
@JimRaynor55 as for the whole REAL combat, let's not forget that the British Challenger I and Challenger II fought 2 times in the same place, conditions and the same enemy and had suffered significantly less casualties and done more damage relative to their numbers.
@MatoVuc "the British Challenger I and Challenger II fought 2 times in the same place, conditions and the same enemy and had suffered significantly less casualties and done more damage relative to their numbers."
They were used in very small numbers. And even then, look at how they were used. in DS they were almost never the leading force in VII Corps & in OIF only captured Basra and never were so strategically exposed. And in post war Iraq were seldom used outside the wire.
@franknbeans4761 "They were used in very small numbers" - hence the 'relative to their numbers' that i wrote.
they still took out 300 tanks with their 180 Challenger I-s and achieved the only reported 4km tank gun hit and kill.
yeah, it's almost as if the Brits knew that they'd be up shit's creek if they over-exposed themselves in ideal guerrilla territory, even with their improved armour.
@NosferatuAaacaado Let's leave racial slurs out of this because it just makes you look very dumb.
A major problem was that their was a lot of mismanagement on the part of the Russians, and poor tactics. But I was mainly replying to what he said in the first place about it. It was a response. If you disagree with it take it up with him rather than saying "Bitch please."
I was reacting to what was said about how Russian tanks are only good for open country, maneuver warfare. I never said this or that I was only reacting to it.
Like I said, Chechnya was not due to vehicle failures, but human error on a large scale.
"No other operational tank in the world is as heavily flawed in design, concept, or results as the M1 Abrams."
Don't bullshit us Blacktail, you know that is not true on any level. What about Russian tanks in Grozny?
Can you say that the Abrams is bad after battles like 73 Easting? Or the Thunder Run? Or many of it's other engagements?
And don't feed me the same BS about Iraq being a paper tiger, Israel fought nothing but low quality enemies and it had nothing to do with their level of skill.
Russian tank design philosophy prioritizes the best possible performance in flat, open areas, because this is the primary topography of the Russian frontier. If you spearhead an attack on an area as cramped and built-up as Grozny with tanks designed for fighting in the countryside, losses are bound to be heavy.
@BlacktailDefense So Russian tanks should only fight in the countryside? That severely limits their capabilities. Why would you want a tank that can only fight in open country side when there are so many urban battles? It doesn't make sense.
@franknbeans4761 "Can you say that the Abrams is bad after battles like 73 Easting?"
That wasn't a battle --- it was a slaughter, because the Republican Guard didn't have a Strategy. They just drew a line in the sand, parked on it, and left the Coalition to take the initiative. Compounding their failure to employ Maneuver Warfare was their failure to avoid becoming decisively engaged, and their literally suicidal fanaticism.
@BlacktailDefense It was a slaughter, and in that case it was primarily tactics that allowed the US cavalry unit to achieve such an astounding victory.
The Iraqi brigade had their tanks dug in hull down, used a minefield to protect their flank, and had tanks in reserve to counterattack (which they did but to no avail). The combined maneuver warfare with the tanks in reserve along with fixed defenses like the minefield. And the US still had a large victory.
@franknbeans4761 From what I remember, another major factor was the fact that the Iraqis used their tanks like self-propelled artillery/mobile pillboxes due to their experiences in the Iran-Iraq War. They had little experience in using their main gun in a direct fire role.
@Flugabwehrkanone Yes that is true, they did. But that was actually more so in the 2003 Invasion, when they knew from experience that they can't stand up to Coalition armor. Also, they used a lot of small ambush attacks too to try to eliminate advantages in range and their lack of fire power due to inadequate ammunition.
@BlacktailDefense Do you think that Israel did fight well trained enemies? What about the lack of Egyptian alert on the opening day of the 6 Day War? Or in 1973 when the Egyptians decided to leave their air defense umbrella? Or in 1982 when the Syrians had mobile AA missiles in the Beqaa Valley, yet never moved them, resulting in their immediate destruction?
And don't even get me started on their ground tactics.
Israel did in fact fight inferior enemies so stop using the "paper tiger" line.
@franknbeans4761 "Do you think that Israel did fight well trained enemies? What about the lack of Egyptian alert on the opening day of the 6 Day War? Or in 1973 when the Egyptians decided to leave their air defense umbrella? Or in 1982 when the Syrians had mobile AA missiles in the Beqaa Valley, yet never moved them, resulting in their immediate destruction?"
I never said they were led by brilliant *strategists*.
@BlacktailDefense Yes, and strategy and leadership (in small units and as a whole) is sometimes more important than what equipment you are using. So yes, Israel did face poor enemies.
"The people reacting to the missiles were trying to maneuver, trying to escape them, to confuse the missile by zigzagging. Half an hour after we arrived in the area, we were more or less finished as a company."
--- Lt. Yuval Neria, IDF tank company CO, who lost 9 of his 11 tanks to Egyptian ATGMs
@franknbeans4761 Here's another account of Israel's "poor enemies";
"I remember one Egyptian. He was a very brave guy, he stood in front of my tank with an RPG and fired. It struck my tank and struck me and I fell down into the tank."
--- Maj. Chaim Adini, IDF tank battalion CO, who lost 9 tanks to the Egyptians
@franknbeans4761 Here's one of those "poor enemies" recounting his "failures";
"[IDF Col.] Yagouri made tactical mistakes, Our troops and tanks were all well dug in. Yagouri sent out 10 tanks, and we destroyed 7. Then he sent 13, and we destroyed 4.
It was men against tanks. Frequently, they were knocking out a tank from the rear after it had gone by. That takes courage and determination. The Israelis were wiped out in 3 minutes, having scarcely fired a shot."
@franknbeans4761 You also failed to notice that these "poor enemies" solved the Suez Canal dike dilemma by a stroke of brilliance. Instead of relying on guns or explosives to level it, they brought in 200 fire pumps on rafts, and literally washed away the dikes.
Anwar Sadat had anticipated that this operation would cost thousands of lives; instead, the Egyptians lost exactly 208 men.
"The whole operation was a magnificent symphony played by thousands of men."
@BlacktailDefense "You also failed to notice that these "poor enemies" solved the Suez Canal dike dilemma by a stroke of brilliance. Instead of relying on guns or explosives to level it, they brought in 200 fire pumps on rafts, and literally washed away the dikes."
That doesn't have anything to do with the actual encounters with enemy forces. It was a great idea to do this but still has nothing to do with training and troop quality.
"...apart from the particulars of defense, the Israelis had little respect for the fighting abilities of the Arabs. After 4 wars fought against it's neighbors since 1948, the little nation felt supremely confident that it would prevail in battle, no matter how ardently it's enemies wanted their territory back."
@BlacktailDefense "...apart from the particulars of defense, the Israelis had little respect for the fighting abilities of the Arabs. After 4 wars fought against it's neighbors since 1948, the little nation felt supremely confident that it would prevail in battle, no matter how ardently it's enemies wanted their territory back."
You even presented something that says the Israeli's had little respect for the fighting abilities of the Arabs, proving that they were inferior enemies.
@franknbeans4761 yeah, until they got their asses handed to them. You aren't really this dismissive of perceived "inferior"opponents in real life, are you? If so, please, try your best to avoid actual fighting.
"During the first 3 days of the war, the Israeli Armored Corps had received a bloody education, and the futile assaults against the Egyptian bridgehead were not renewed after October 8. The dismissive attitude toward the enemy was gone."
--- The Armored Fist, Time-Life Books, Pg. 36, Paragraph 1
Wow, that's TOTALLY the kind of result that bad strategy and leadership produces!
@BlacktailDefense "During the first 3 days of the war, the Israeli Armored Corps had received a bloody education, and the futile assaults against the Egyptian bridgehead were not renewed after October 8. The dismissive attitude toward the enemy was gone."
This is due to surprise and many other reasons. The actual poor decisions and training made by the Arabs greatly outweighed the good.
@franknbeans4761 i will admit that the Arab troops were likely far better trained for parading than actual fighting in comparison to the Israelies, but are you really trying to tell me that they managed to achieve surprise attacks for 3 days as a fluke?
we are talking about the Yom Kipur War here, the war that prompted significant restructuring within the IDF
@MatoVuc I would say that the surprise attacks of the Arabs largely reflected the actual strategy of their battle plan, not the unit training.
For example, in 1973 on the Golan heights, there were only a handful of IDF tanks up against hundreds of Syrian tanks due to surprise being achieved, but were destroyed when they actually engaged the Israeli's.
@franknbeans4761 i'll give you that point only very slightly. again, the Israelis were no doubt better trained than the Egyptians or the Syrians, but come on, man. If you really are a serviceman as you claim, you should know that even the most competent commanders can do only so much if the troops they command aren't capable of following their orders properly.
@MatoVuc I am actually an officer candidate, I am not active, but whatever.
Yes, you do have to have good command and control, and I am not saying the enemies Israel faced were unbelievably terrible, I am just saying that they were comparable to the enemy the US fought in 1991 and 2003. And even then, Syrians were still in Iraq fighting US troops during and after the 2003 Invasion.
@franknbeans4761 if you say so. I'd give at least the Egyptians more credit than Saddam's army, particularly in 2003. after all, in 1991 his forces had just come out of a war with Iran, which provided them experience, but also meant they needed to fill the ranks with pretty much new recruits, so their level of training was far from good.
in 2003, it was mostly a new, inexperienced army since most of the army was decimated in the Gulf war and many experienced high ranks retiring in the 12 years
@MatoVuc After the Iran Iraq war, Iraq had new and fresh recruits, but had NCO's that had a lot of experience.
In 2003, the Iraqi army had the advantage of already going up against the American military and knowing tactics, equipment, and many other things. And it showed in their tactics (tank ambushes, attacking supply columns, etc).
@BlacktailDefense And, if you still say that Israel did in fact face very tough, well training, forces; then the US must of too. Not only did Iraq send units to fight Israel in multiple wars, but Syria and other countries sent units to Iraq to fight the US.
There were many Syrians that were found in the Al Anbar province and they fought during the Battle for Baghdad. So which is it then?
@BlacktailDefense I was referring to the second gulf war. And yes, most of the Syrian insurgents did in fact have Syrian military training.
Also, look at the battle over the Golan in 1973. The IDF had only a handful of tanks that fought off wave after wave of Syrian attacks. Even IDF commanders said that the Syrian tanks would not maneuver and only charge head first at them, making them prime targets. Plus, the Syrians had terrible positions to attack with. And just like in Iraq, the ........
@BlacktailDefense .....forces that Syria had to fight were using poor quality rounds. The Israeli's on the other hand had HESH rounds that were able to defeat the Syrian tanks. Sound familiar to the DU rounds the Abrams was using verse the inferior Iraqi rounds?
I think infantry fire support could be provided by M113s equipped with the ARES 75mm autocannon. I remember reading somewhere that in a simulated Fulda Gap engagement, these vehicles, when firing 3 sabot round bursts, had a 2-3x better chance of success than an M1. Obviously, this weapon could fire HE, APERS, etc. as well.
@Flugabwehrkanone An ARES firing 3 round burst of 75mm autocannon rounds would run out of ammunition very quickly. And I doubt it had the penetration of a M829A3. Maybe it was better with penetration than the M1 munitions at the time of the testing but not today.
@franknbeans4761 Wouldn't that be counterbalanced by the M113's greater internal volume and the smaller size of the 75mm rounds? Also, the ARES had a muzzle velocity equivalent to the 105mm L7 and could penetrate a T-72's frontal armor at 2000m. What I found most impressive was that a burst of four shots was enough to bring down a fighter flying evasively at 4000m.
@Flugabwehrkanone But an M113 does not have the protection that is anywhere close to the Abrams. And even then, a M829A3 still has more punch than the bursts of 75mm rounds.
And I don't think there would be any effectiveness against Kontakt-5 armor when using 75mm rounds.
@franknbeans4761 The M113's protection would be its ease of concealment. Perhaps one round is weaker, but the idea is to drill through the same spot. That's why the GAU-8 can kill tanks. And on the contrary, ERA is ineffective if hit in the same spot more than once.
It gets the element of surprise by shooting enemy tanks at ranges they cannot achieve. Next, the strategy of it "running off by itself to fight other tanks" is BULLSHIT, because it DOESNT have any other tanks to fight anymore. And again, has NOTHING to do with the tank.
BandNerdcp 3 days ago
@BandNerdcp "It gets the element of surprise by shooting enemy tanks at ranges they cannot achieve."
The M1's gunnery computer cannot calculate a range beyond 4000m. That's about 1000m short of the effective range of the Soviet 9M119M Refleks (AT-11 Sniper), which penetrates 950mm of RHA Steel, and about 4000m short of the effective *direct-fire* range of the L31 HESH round fired by the Challenger 2 --- as well as the Chieftain Mk.III that Iran operates 200 of.
BlacktailDefense 3 days ago
@BandNerdcp "Next, the strategy of it "running off by itself to fight other tanks" is BULLSHIT, because it DOESNT have any other tanks to fight anymore. And again, has NOTHING to do with the tank. "
Then why were no rounds other than HEAT and Sabot for the M1's 120mm gun until the late 1990s?
And why were the efforts field other rounds so weak? The Canister does the same thing as the M1's machine guns, HE-OR is actually APHE, and MPAT is HEAT with an added anti-helicopter capability.
BlacktailDefense 3 days ago
@BandNerdcp In what kind of a world do you live???
Are you brainwashed so very badly??!
-
Im affraid that the gun of the abrams isnt any better as its oponents...
Only a american who believes, that he lives in a superior nation too literally, is gonna type a reply such as yours...
Weibkoln 1 day ago
From the very start of this video, it is completely wrong. The M1 abrams IIRC, it can fire all types of ammo, but if not it I know for a fact it fires canister. Secondly, who gives a fuck about rounds that never went into service, that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TANK. Next, its only lost more because it is deployed more than all the other tanks.. although i dont know where you get your info, since you dont cite sources. and since WHEN is ANY tank stealthy?
BandNerdcp 3 days ago
@BandNerdcp "The M1 abrams IIRC, it can fire all types of ammo, but if not it I know for a fact it fires canister. Secondly, who gives a fuck about rounds that never went into service, that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TANK."
See the firepower chapter. Or maybe you can't comprehend what "overview" means?
BlacktailDefense 3 days ago
@BandNerdcp "Next, its only lost more because it is deployed more than all the other tanks.. although i dont know where you get your info, since you dont cite sources."
The USMC's 200 M60A1s destroyed over 100 tanks, and the 180 Challenger 1s destroyed 300 tanks in the Gulf. Combined, they officially had less protection, mobility, and firepower than the M1, yet they suffered only 2 losses --- to mines, with no casualties.
14 M1s were lost, with 21 casualties, including a KIA.
BlacktailDefense 3 days ago
@BlacktailDefense "14 M1s were lost, with 21 casualties, including a KIA."
1 KIA out of 14 M1's being lost? That tells a lot about crew survivability. And with only 35% of the total crew members being wounded out of destroyed tanks, I would say that isn't bad at all.
franknbeans4761 3 days ago
@franknbeans4761 Not when the only tanks they've ever faced were export-model T-55s, T-62s, T-72s, and make-believe T-72s. A refrigerator and a cardboard box are the same shape, but do NOT have the same composition --- the same goes with ComBloc export-model weapons, which is why their manufacturers call them "Monkey Models".
This is all the M1 has ever been tested against.
BlacktailDefense 3 days ago
@BlacktailDefense Same with most, well all, MBT's.
Either way, you said there were 14 destroyed, that means 14 losses. If only 1 man died then that isn't bad no matter what.
franknbeans4761 3 days ago
@franknbeans4761 "1 KIA out of 14 M1's being lost? That tells a lot about crew survivability."
Especially when all of the ammunition that Iraq used was more than 20 years old, with the notable exception of the rounds that Iraqi T-72M1s, Saddams, and Asad Babils used against the M1 --- which were TPFSDS rounds with *Aluminum* projectiles.
BlacktailDefense 3 days ago
@BlacktailDefense Doesn't matter, some of these were fratricide. But it also doesn't matter either, a destroyed tank is a destroyed tank. If only 1 man was killed out of 14 tanks being destroyed, it says a lot about crew survivability.
franknbeans4761 3 days ago
@franknbeans4761 But that is also when assuming if your sources are right, which is something that raises question a lot.
franknbeans4761 3 days ago
@franknbeans4761 Abrams is indeed good tank to ride in, crews normally survive hits. this has been proved by several friendly fire incidents. the only problem is a destroyed tank is a destroyed tank. while crew survivability is something desirable, if the tank gets felled and burns even if the crew survives, its still a tragedy that can cost a battle in a conventional war scenario
Pcordero87 3 days ago
@Pcordero87 True, I was more so seeing his reasoning behind what he had to say about it and I am still not sure how reliable his statistics were.
Losing tanks is usually what causes you to lose the battle, but returning tank crews to combat with viable experience and hard learned lessons would usually allow you to win the war.
franknbeans4761 3 days ago
@BandNerdcp "and since WHEN is ANY tank stealthy? "
The myth holds that the M1's gas turbine makes it stealthy. It's quite noisy, and so is the rest of any 70-ton tank.
BlacktailDefense 3 days ago
h t t p : // forum. worldoftanks. c o m/ index.php?/ topic/ 92688-the-real-m1-abrams/ page__st__60__p__1502656#entry1502656
The Chieftain would like to have a word with you....
AquaPhoenix2006 4 days ago
@AquaPhoenix2006 I'll deal with them.
BlacktailDefense 3 days ago
@BlacktailDefense There has been a lot of internet chatter relating you and Sparks. You should set some things straight rather than associating yourself with him by supporting what he says.
franknbeans4761 3 days ago
Yeah, Imma gonna have to say...No. You have made a LOT of statements here without backing them up with, oh...what do you call them...Oh yeah: FACTS or NUMBERS. And by facts I mean the fact that you spew a lot without citing any sources, leading us to believe that this is, in fact, your opinion and NOT a reflection of reality at all. So yeah, research first before you embarrass yourself further.
EngineeringWizard11 1 week ago
Yeah it had more losses than the Coalition tanks only because there were far more Abrams than any other tank in either Gulf Wars. So when you have more of it it's far more likely to get shot at than other tanks. Also every tank will always be vulnerable to AT armed infantry.
thaflyinglunchbox 1 week ago
surprisingly anything newer than a T-44 can kill it
Giganaut233 2 weeks ago
@Giganaut233 I wouldn't put it past a T-44 either, with a modern 85mm round.
BlacktailDefense 2 weeks ago
All this time, you posted videos about how your are a concerned citizen of the US. But now with the new YouTube layout, your page says "Käyttäjän BlacktailDefense kanava" which is Finnish.
That is such bullshit. You aren't American and you just despise the US. How weird.
franknbeans4761 2 months ago
@franknbeans4761 It would be ashame if someone is an american.
Talshet 1 month ago
@Talshet Elaborate please? What is that referring to? Or are you just trying to voice your own racism?
franknbeans4761 1 month ago
@Talshet Hi! Friendly neighborhood American here, how can I help you?
EngineeringWizard11 1 week ago
it funny how it says that the M1 only uses an AT round. it fires an a HEAT, DU, and shot canister round. the HEAT and shot canister rounds have destroyed buildings and annihilated infantry, but only the Depleted Uranium round is used for anti-tank purposes. therefore 66% of its ammunition type are dedicated to anti structure and anti infantry porposes. its a higher % if you count the Coaxial MG and the two on the roof of the turret. this video is bullshit from the start.
wildchild77x 2 months ago
The amount of Bullshit I saw in this "video" is overwhelming. Oh well. One idiot on YouTube can't change hard facts: The M1 Abrams is by far the best tank in the world.
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
@gameragodzilla Are you actually going to address any of the points I made, or are you just going to hide from the issue behind your trash-talking?
BlacktailDefense 4 months ago
@BlacktailDefense I doubt I'm supposed to trust a random YouTube poster that has nothing but bold red letters with points that have no backing whatsoever when thousands of military workers, historians, and enthusiasts say it's the best tank in the world. Your points are all countered by the Abrams' real life track record: as a near-invincible tank that completely raped foreign tanks and terrorists and lost more tanks due to friendly fire and scuttling than enemy fire. Your videos are bullshit
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
@gameragodzilla "Your points are all countered by the Abrams' real life track record: as a near-invincible tank that completely raped foreign tanks and terrorists and lost more tanks due to friendly fire and scuttling than enemy fire."
WHICH points? You can't prove my claims are untrue if you don't address them, so you're still hiding from the issue.
BlacktailDefense 4 months ago
@BlacktailDefense Everything. You have cited absolutely no sources (except for a dictionary definition), and all of your points about the M1 Abrams being inadequate, bad etc. have absolutely no basis in fact. Why don't you first tell me your sources because so far, ALL of your claims are bullshit. Look at the M1 Abrams in real life, and then look at it in your video. Big difference.
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
@gameragodzilla "You have cited absolutely no sources..."
This chapter is an OVERVIEW, smart guy.
"...all of your points about the M1 Abrams being inadequate, bad etc. have absolutely no basis in fact."
Which points? You're still hiding from the issues.
"Why don't you first tell me your sources because so far, ALL of your claims are bullshit."
The GAO, POGO, USA Today, Pierre Sprey, The Pentagon Wars (the book), and the American Fighting Vehicle Database are a few of my sources.
BlacktailDefense 4 months ago
@BlacktailDefense This was a response to ALL of your videos. I didn't feel like posting on all of them. And my response was to ALL of your points, because answering each one individually would take forever.
Every single one of your articles date to BEFORE the Gulf War... BEFORE the Abrams was combat-tested. So, you cite outdated articles, and thus, your are, beyond all reasonable doubt, full of shit.
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
@gameragodzilla It's useless. I have already pointed out how out of date his facts/points are, how many double standards he has, how biased he is, & after I do it; he will avoid the question.
Don't even bother with it because you are dealing with someone who has no grasp on how wars are fought, what the current vehicles are like, & the truth.
Even his sources are usually blogs & random threads of one guy with no credibility saying something, or him making his own interpretations. It's pathetic
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Fair enough. Seems like all he's trying to accomplish with these videos is to troll us, with noncredible or outdated sources spouting total BS.
Nevertheless, it doesn't matter what some random Youtube War Expert says. The facts speak for themselves: The M1 Abrams is the best tank in the world. Others may equal it (like the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2) but none surpasses it.
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
@gameragodzilla It's a troll on the largest scale I have ever seen. He uploaded some 172 videos (slide shows) about that are a testament to his stupidity. The craziness in some people...
I would say no tank is number 1, but there's a handful of tanks that are all in the same category & all have different compromises that make them good in their own aspect.
So for Blacktail to go as far as this, with the mentality that he has is just jaw dropping & astonishing.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 True, no tank is number 1. Individually, I'd say that every modern main battle tank are relatively equal. Some might have a slight advantage in one area and a slight disadvantage in another area, but overall, all the MBTs are very badass. The only reason why I say the M1 Abrams is the best is because while other modern MBTs number in the hundreds, the M1 Abrams number in the thousands (8000 to be exact). Other than larger numbers, there's not that much difference.
gameragodzilla 4 months ago
@gameragodzilla I agree, you can look at the exact tank itself, & that is important, but you also need to consider the number built & in use.
Combat experience is also a factor. The Abrams saw combat in 1991, 2001, & 2003 giving it around 11-12 combat years. Along with large, realistic training operations around the world. Even if the enemy they faced wasn't very capable, it still saw years of service under live fire which is something no real current MBT can say other than maybe the Merkava.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 the russian's are constantly engaged in Chechenya since the '90s with infantry, mechanized, motorized and armoured units which include the t-72s of various models, t-80s and the t-90s in serious guerilla conflict and with the latest conventional war in Georgia, that gives their tanks and crews this exp you say they don't have.
there's also the 5 years of war in and in the neighborhood of my country from 1990-1995 that included t-55s and m-84s.
not quite as lopsided as you say
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc If I could of included more, I would of. Just for the sake of explanation I decided not to. That is why I only briefly mentioned the Merkava Mk 4.
But the T-90 has not seen battle. There are talks of it being with the field army that went to Georgia but I still cannot find anything on it.
But yes, it isn't like the Abrams has an unbelievable track record, it just has been under fire for a decade. Which is something that can't be dismissed. That is all.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Mk 4? that's pretty close to your t-90 argument, since i suppose you're taking into account all the combat the previous Merkavas saw into it's combat record.
much the same could be said about the t-90 in relation to thet-72, of which the model B and BM were engaged in Georgia and again, the t-72B/BM, the T-80s and t-90s have seen hard combat in much worse guerrilla terrain and sucking up more RPG hits than IEDs.
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc Well hold on. The T-90 has not seen combat service. That is a fact.
The Merkava Mk 4 was used on & off since 2006.
What do you mean sucking up more RPG hits than IEDs? As in comparison to an Abrams?
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 yes. the Iraqi insurgents use more IEDs as opposed to the Chechen rebels preferring RPGs.
there is a note in the wikipedia article on the t-90 (note 40 Alexander Pashin. "Russian Army Operations and Weaponry During Second Military Campaign in Chechnya"...) that specifically mentions the performance (protection) of the t-90 that saw action in Dagestan.
"In the Kadari zone one T-90 was hit by seven RPG anti-tank rockets[8] but remained in action. "
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc I really wouldn't use Wikipedia as a source. Someone probably took the trial in which a T-90 was struck with 7 RPG's & was still able to drive. Because that happened but not in combat. Which unit was using the T-90 if it occurred? How many were there? Which engagement & which are of Dagestan?
The Abrams still came under RPG fire in Iraq & Afghanistan numerous times too.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 read the article that is used as the actual source. Note 40!
there is a reference to the tests, but this is a reference to actual combat.
from the real article, not wiki:
"The use of T-90S tanks in Dagestan deserves mention. A group of these vehicles consisting of 8 to 12 units according to different sources was supposed to be delivered to India. Following a sharp aggravation of the situation in the Caucasus, however, the tanks were transferred to Dagestan..."
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc "... In the Kadari zone one T-90 was hit by seven RPG anti-tank rockets8 but remained in action. This indicates that with regular equipment T-90S is the best protected Russian tank, especially if Shtora and Arena defensive protection systems are integrated in it."
h t t p: // web . archive . org/ web / 20090129141108/h t t p: // mdb.cast.ru / mdb / 3-2002 / ac / raowdsmcc /
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc Then I am mistaken. 8-12 tanks did enter combat. I was going off of something Bitnik told me a month or so ago. But thank you.
Either way, that is still very limited. You did prove me wrong in it's combat history but that is still nothing in terms of most other tanks.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 it's still a field report from 2000. not sure how hard it would be to get a hold of more recent reports.
considering they had deployed those on the fly, I see no reason why they wouldn't have sent their domestic t-90 and t-90A over the later 2000s.
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc I am just saying that what Bitnik & others have told me, it wasn't in combat. That is all I have heard & I certainly find it hard to come by combat experience of the T-90. Even that entire article only had it briefly mentioned.
You never hear numerous stories about the T-90 in Chechnya or Georgia. If you can easily find it then I would like to know but otherwise I couldn't really consider it having an actual combat track record on the scale of the Abrams.
That is all I was saying.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 well, i said i wasn't sure how hard it would be to find more recent and more detailed records, seeing as I'm not russian and they do seem to keep their lips tightly shut about any details of their combat performance of practically any weapon system.
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc I did find a couple sites talking about Daegestan but that is all that they mentioned about it's history. I am not sure if they would of just used it as an "attacking" tank, while other tanks like the T-62 were used for occupation. I could see that, but I just cannot find any other talk of it being used in combat. I will keep looking and let you know if I find it but I really don't think it has any more combat experience.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@MatoVuc ......But I would have to say that the war in Chechnya, especially from 2000 on wards was not as intensive as in Iraq. The area was much larger & there were many more irregulars.
I was more so referring to the fact that the fact that the Abrams was continuously used by one country for that long & didn't have any major problems with it.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 this is very much alike to the russian experience with the t-72B/BM, t-80/U/UM and the t-90, they have been used for over a decade.
the M1 went from A0, to A1, to A2, then got the TUSK kit and now is going to the A3.
if the Abrams had no serious deficiencies as you say, it wouldn't have to go through all those upgrades (technological evolution comes from necessity).
as for major problems, it has them (weight!, engine), but the US have been able to work around them THUS FAR
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc You should calm down.
Obviously the upgrade to A1 & A2 was necessary. If you look at my comments I was saying it hasn't had enough problems to mark it as a terrible tank.
The upgrades from A1 to A2 to TUSK weren't from deficiencies but out of changing technologies/concepts & adapting to the combat environment.
And yes, the US has been able to compensate for the engine & weight. That is what I was saying.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 calm down? you mean the "thus far" part? i was just stressing with the Caps since there is no underline in the comments here.
my point is that compensation is not the same as solution of problems, which could end up being an issue when such compensation is hard or impossible to do.
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc You just seemed like you were freaking out. Apart from the thus far comment.
I would say that in all, the Abrams is limited by fuel consumption & weight, which obviously hasn't proved that big of a problem for all of it's operators.
Do you honestly think the Abrams has that big of problems that should have 30-40 (?) videos dedicated to it? Or that it is one of the worst tanks in active service?
If you do then alright then but all I am saying is that it's not those things.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 let's put it this way. I don't think it's terrible, but at best terribly mediocre, particularly in it's generation.
unlike most other tanks however, it is extremely overhyped and overpraised (sometimes undeservedly so), which is why people have negative feelings about it and there are glaring issue that have been rightfully pointed out such as the non necessity for the gas turbine, the lack of non-antiarmour munitions, the exposed APU, etc.
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc The only reason for the GTE is to make it function well in all environments. No matter what. Whereas diesel engines take a very long time to start up. Not that I am standing up for it just providing insight.
atk . com/capabilities_defense/cs_ms_w_tgs_120ammo . asp
I wouldn't say the ammo is terrible, but it needs improvement.
I also wouldn't say the Abrams is the best tank but most likely top 5. Maybe top 3 but that is debatable.
I agree 110% on the hype people make on it though.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 functions well in all environments? it's one of the most sensitive power units to adverse conditions due (without filters the sand eats away the blades very quickly), being a turbine it takes a while to get running (unless i missed something).
Diesel tank engines are essentially oversized car/truck engines, hence much easier maintenance, they have no trouble with high or low temperatures and are now able to run on both diesel and petrol. (...)
please explain your points
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc No way. Blacktail said that diesel engines on tanks can just start up with ease & go no matter what. That is not the case at all. It takes 2-3 minutes to start up a diesel engine then 5-10 minutes, depending on the weather, to actually warm it up. In very cold conditions it takes as high as 20 minutes to fully warm up whereas GTE can start up in 60-90 seconds. Diesel engines on tanks are certainly not like cars.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 if you say so. i know that the nazi tanks would freeze up in the winter, but they were petrol and they actually had to light fires under them to start them up, but i didn't hear about the russian diesels suffering the same.
as for the start up, i'll take your word for it, but I've seen videos of the t-55 here on youtube starting up, and it starts in a matter of seconds and gets moving about a minute after so...
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc It all depends on if it's warm or not. If the vehicle was just on & running, it will start up right away. If it is off for a certain period of time, then it is fine.
I know Russia has a special torch that helps warm up their engines in winter. It can be used 10 times before it is spent. I think it's called an AFP or something like that.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 well, the one i saw was starting up and driving off the trailer, among others.
/watch?v=qb9ZhcMllcc
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc In that video it too 1:09 for it to get going, which is fine, but what I was referring to is actually getting the engine warmed up & suitable for combat. And in that video the weather was quite nice & wouldn't have any real affect on it. This difference is very small in good weather but much larger in cold weather due to a piston engine requiring more lubricants & oils in all of its pistons.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@MatoVuc But like I said, it can still start up in about 2-3 minutes (at most) but it takes awhile for it to actually get warmed up to usable conditions. But like I also said, this is a GTE's only advantage.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 the issue with the ammo, as Blacktail has rightfully pointed out is that it's all absolutely anti-tank oriented and has no anti-infantry or anti-structure munitions.
to contrast that with the russian 125 gun, they have APFSDS, HEAT and HEFrag rounds.
the germans have developed a HE round for the 120mm smoothbore and the isrealis are/have developed smart munitions for their merkavas, but the M1 doesn't have them.
that is a serious limitation
MatoVuc 4 months ago
@MatoVuc I know he addressed the problems with the ammunition already, but I do have to say that experience in Iraq & Afghanistan have shown this clearly isn't a large limitation. With the M830A1 round that is. It may not be as good as other rounds of it's class but it has fared alright. Something that wouldn't of been proven without it's combat history like I said earlier.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 yeah, but as you said, it's not nearly as good and considering how easy, cheap and no real R&D it would require to give it an HE round, not doing so is at best questionable.
MatoVuc 4 months ago
The fact that there are flaws with the M1 isn't a shock. Wars change, technology improves. It's a fact of life. Look at WWII, there were new tanks and prototypes all the time from every country.
New tanks could be designed and implimented all the time, the only issue is money and need. We just don't fight wars against strong opponents anymore. Pointing out flaws in a vehicle that serves its purpose perfectly isn't really necessary..
9700ghost 5 months ago
@9700ghost "The fact that there are flaws with the M1 isn't a shock."
It's not that there are flaws in the M1's design that are the issue --- it's the sheer number and severity of them.
"We just don't fight wars against strong opponents anymore."
...until we do again. Having second-rate equipment will come back to bite us in the ass when it does, and this has happened before; read about the Torpedo Scandal of World War 2.
BlacktailDefense 4 months ago
@BlacktailDefense "It's not that there are flaws in the M1's design that are the issue --- it's the sheer number and severity of them."
If that is so, then even a force like Saddam's should of inflicted much heavier casualties than anyone claimed. I mean, you must have to question some of your beliefs when even other independent researchers put the Abrams in the top 5 tanks in the world. It's just puzzling that you always go to such extremes.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 "If that is so, then even a force like Saddam's should of inflicted much heavier casualties than anyone claimed."
Saddam Hussein was no strategist; he was just a gangster, and his results in Desert Storm reflect that fact.
BlacktailDefense 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 "I mean, you must have to question some of your beliefs when even other independent researchers put the Abrams in the top 5 tanks in the world."
If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking. For example, how much research do these 'independent researchers' actually do? If they did their homework, they'd know better than to put a tank into a Top 10 that ate all of it's spare engines by 2004, and has pyrophoric armor with more radioactivity than fallout.
BlacktailDefense 4 months ago
@BlacktailDefense Everyone isn't thinking alike. I never said they all think it's number one but everyone considers it somewhere close to the top.
And a lot of people have done their homework, that's why Saudi Arabia, Egypt, & Australia bought it, & it doesn't matter if they are US allies, the same could be said for most Russian equipment.
If it was so incredibly bad like you say, then it wouldn't of achieved such astounding victories no matter what. Regardless of the enemy.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 I don't know about Egypt and Saudi, but Australia didn't seem to do their homework, though. The first M1s that arrived in their port immediately plagued by transport problem from their heavy weight - which is also said to be problematic for Australia road bridges and, presumably, their road infrastructure in general. If this is any indication, one will wonder how Australia is going to use them...
2205Razors 4 months ago
@2205Razors Perhaps, it all just depends. The Abrams did fare well in Iraq (terrain wise) so I am sure it would do well in the expanses of Australia. But yes, the weight would of course be a problem for long distance hauls but I highly doubt Australia is that incompetent with it.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Well, they have to. Otherwise, the taxpayers will be VERY angry if those M1s are still stuck in the port until today. I haven't heard how they solved the problem though, but last I heard, they are considering about changing rail gauge and road transport is considered highly unfavorable. Whatever it is, it seems going to cost a lot.
Sure, M1s will do fine in the desert part of Australia as long as their logistics can keep up. I personally still think it's a stupid buy, tho...
2205Razors 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 ... I mean, SINGAPORE can support Leo2s no problem, and even have them upgraded with AMAP - and don't tell me that those are inferior to M1s.
2205Razors 4 months ago
@2205Razors "and don't tell me that those are inferior to M1s."
Well I'm not. I didn't know they upgraded them with AMAP though.
As for Australia, here's some photos of it's delivery:
defence . pk/forums/world-affairs/2311-australias-m1-abrams-tanks-arrives . html
I would have to say that it certainly isn't heavy enough to cause major problems, especially with roll-on roll-off ships & the abundance of trucks.
And the Abrams is still sustainable, just not as good as other tanks at all.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 It really just depends but it is still fully sustainable & isn't significantly different than most tanks.
I did choose to leave Kuwait & Iraq out of the mix because they are obviously heavily influenced by the US but they are still operators.
I suppose my main point was that if a tank has 5 operators (soon to be 6 with Greece) it cannot be this bad.
However Greece is only obtaining them due to bargain basement prices & I don't think it'll do well on the islands.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Sorry, make that 6 (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, US, Egypt, & Australia) & soon to be 7 with Greece.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Hold on... Greece? And M1? I don't see any news about it. Source, please? If it's true, then considering Greece's economical condition, I'd say that they are prolly rather *pressured* to buy it rather than making sensible judgment.
Well, 7 M1 operators, 2 are 'influenced', and 1 is possibly 'pressured'. Oh, and Saudi is going to acquire Leo2s as well - that country seems to collect weapon from *everywhere* like a hobby. Leo still has more operators worldwide, though.
2205Razors 4 months ago
@2205Razors I am not trying to compare it to the Leopard, but you cannot argue with 6-7 countries operating them.
network54 . com/Forum/248068/thread/1314878794/1314951417/It+is+raining+US+weapons+in+Greece
That is the first article I can find. I read about it first on Military Photos . net. Greece is literally getting them for free but paying for them to be upgraded upon delivery.
But even then, a lot of Soviet equipment was influenced, pressured, or forced so that is not a viable argument.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@2205Razors Continued:
Here is a more official source:
defencegreece . com/index . php/2011/10/the-u-s-approved-to-grant-400-m1a1-abrams-to-greece
They also looked at Bradleys but were only offered much older models.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Uh... actually, I looked through that page to confirm if Australia indeed has problem with their M1s on port. As you can see, the forum post that states Aussie's M1s 'have arrived' is followed *later* by the post saying that the M1s 'got stranded', if you go by the posting time. Also, the links in the forum post that refer back to the source confirm it. Bottom line, I haven't seen the resolution, if that's what you want to show me.
2205Razors 4 months ago
@2205Razors Well yes, they didn't have rail transport for their tanks.
I am not sure if you think they are still stuck at the port or what though. But it is obviously a problem that can be solved relatively quickly. Especially when considering the "Australian Land Trains" that roam their roads.
But the weight of the variant the Australians got is still fairly comparable in terms of the Leopard 2. Most bridges cannot support these tanks so this isn't a surprise to me.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 I don't think that Australians are *that* incompetent to let those behemots sit on port from 2006 until today. I'm implying that the M1s already show problem in the port, and it raises question on how it will be used effectively in Australia.
The stated weight of Australian M1s, according to the same link you gave me, is 68t. Leo2A4 (the one Singapore has, unupgraded) weighs 52t empty. A5 weighs 57t, and A6 weighs close to 58t. That's a huge weight difference to M1 to my eye...
2205Razors 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 ... And if we go by the statement in the same article that Australian road bridges has a threshold of 50t, given Leo's weight that is much closer to that threshold, it is probably easier to work around than M1.
Again, going back to my first statement: I think Australia didn't to do their homework right when deciding to buy M1, given that there are other alternatives that are easier to work with. Therefore, I have suspicion that they could be strong-armed to buy it.
2205Razors 4 months ago
@2205Razors If you want to go in depth with it, it depends.
There is no saying whether or not the bridges in the whole of the countries are capable of supporting them. And they obviously were able to solve the problem. Maybe they planned on taking a more direct route but the bridges didn't permit.
And even then, the didn't have any rail access, which is the most efficient & widely used means of transporting armor within a country.
There literally isn't enough information on it to make.......
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@2205Razors ......a complete statement about it. I would say the Abrams fits Australia's vastness fairly well. At least maybe a little more than other tanks, it is true the Leopard 2 may seem like a better choice, but the Abrams has the advantage of having it's "child diseases" worked out of it. Much like how India chose the AH-64D over the Mi-28N. But that's another story. The Leopard 2 is more widely used, but has never seen real combat experience in a long, sustained, advance.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 India decides it through an open tender, so it's their decision. However, did Australia even do open tender when deciding on M1? And I personally think that M1's *gas turbine* is a *disease* since it's a fuel hog - and equivalent-power diesel engine has existed, which much economic fuel consumption, even. Why hasn't it gone away?
2205Razors 4 months ago
@2205Razors As for the GTE, I couldn't say.
The only advantage it has over diesel engines is it is fully ready to go 60-90 seconds after start up. Whereas diesel tanks take roughly 3 minutes to start & 10 minutes to fully warm up (up to 20 minutes in very cold temperatures).
Maybe the US wanted a tank for all environments. Who knows.
I was merely making the point that the Abrams is much more broken in when compared to most tanks. That is all.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@2205Razors ......And, although other tanks like the Leopard 2 are much more widely used, they haven't seen any viable combat or fought a war that would require it to go through large trials. The Abrams has proved it's mettle in combat, which is appealing, so it isn't that surprising that they chose it.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Battle record is good to have around, but I think nothing is more valid than a trial and comparison by the buyer; in other words: open tender. Battle record only says how good the tank is when used under a certain condition, with a certain tactic. However, trial can expose how the tank will actually fare under the buyer's conditions, tactics, and military doctrine. Different tactic can favor different kind of tank. If battle record is all that counts, everyone would be using M4
2205Razors 4 months ago
@2205Razors Well, that wasn't the point I was getting out.
Any vehicle could perform slightly well in trials, but trials are still fairly limited. It exposes some problems but not to a truly effective extent. Like how I mentioned the Mi-28N losing to the AH-64D. The Mi-28N did lose in many qualifications but it also wasn't a proven system that has gone through many individual upgrades (there's obviously more than the M1A1 & M1A2). With a tank that has only done trials, it isn't fully reliable.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@2205Razors .....But even then, that doesn't fully solve the procurement decision.
It would make sense in terms of costs to buy an American weapon for some of the countries due to their procurement of other American systems. Like the Australians with the Hornet (& much more), Saudis with the F-15 (among others), & so on.
The bang for the buck cannot be matched.
But the fact that the Abrams has been operating fairly well in a desert combat zone for years makes it an ideal candidate for them.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@BlacktailDefense And you even make the point of the Abrams using DU in it's armor making it bad. But what about the countries that have no DU in it's armor? They are still the Abrams & since you consider all variants of the M113 in your videos then that is just a double standard.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
M1's are made of depleted uranium, and so are their tank rounds. This works quite well for raw defense and penetration. The only real flaw of defense is the turret; made instead, of steel. So a round to the turret causes flakes of metal to shred the ammunition within and blow the entire tank.
Account0997 5 months ago
@Account0997 "M1's are made of depleted uranium, and so are their tank rounds."
Only the M1's APFSDS rounds are made of DU, and the only DU in it's armor is a layer of the metal in it's turret. The rest is all either Laminated Steel, or RHA Steel.
BlacktailDefense 5 months ago
@Account0997 "So a round to the turret causes flakes of metal to shred the ammunition within and blow the entire tank."
The M1's ammunition is stowed in an armored, firewalled storage compartment inside the turret bustle. It's designed to prevent the ammo from exploding into the Fighting Compartment.
Problem is though, it doesn't work anymore. The compartment was designed to muffle the blast of exploding 105mm rounds --- all M1s still in service use 120mm rounds, with heavier propellant charges.
BlacktailDefense 5 months ago
Mike Sparks, you are insane.
"yet it's compat [great grammar there, BTW] results fall well short of it's predecessors and contemporaries"
WHICH contemporary tank has a better real life combat record than the Abrams? The Abrams that utterly annihilated Russian designed Iraqi tanks in two wars?
Oh wait, I'm sorry. If it's in the US Military inventory and it's not the M113 (a thinly-armored, minimally-armed APC from the 1950s), then it sucks. My mistake.
JimRaynor55 5 months ago
@JimRaynor55 "WHICH contemporary tank has a better real life combat record than the Abrams?"
A combat record isn't a physical capability.
"The Abrams that utterly annihilated Russian designed Iraqi tanks in two wars?"
They were Monkey Models, watered-down copies of Monkey Models (the "Saddam"), and watered-down copies of *those* (the "Asad Babil") --- the rest were obsolete, and were seldom maintained correctly. Defeating equipment this weak is nothing to brag about.
BlacktailDefense 5 months ago
@BlacktailDefense Of course they were monkey models. Abrams still dominated them. And don't move the goal posts. You brought up "combat results." Now you're trying to dismiss those same combat results. The Abrams has proven more in REAL combat than any other tank out there.
JimRaynor55 5 months ago
@JimRaynor55 REAL combat against INFERIOR and underequiped opponents. Basically, it is the tank equivalent of the high school bully, picking on weaker opponents without ever confronting an opponent that can actually fight back properly, even though there are many out there.
this is not proof of how good you are, only how good you can pick your opponents.
MatoVuc 5 months ago
@JimRaynor55 as for the whole REAL combat, let's not forget that the British Challenger I and Challenger II fought 2 times in the same place, conditions and the same enemy and had suffered significantly less casualties and done more damage relative to their numbers.
MatoVuc 5 months ago
@MatoVuc "the British Challenger I and Challenger II fought 2 times in the same place, conditions and the same enemy and had suffered significantly less casualties and done more damage relative to their numbers."
They were used in very small numbers. And even then, look at how they were used. in DS they were almost never the leading force in VII Corps & in OIF only captured Basra and never were so strategically exposed. And in post war Iraq were seldom used outside the wire.
franknbeans4761 5 months ago
@franknbeans4761 "They were used in very small numbers" - hence the 'relative to their numbers' that i wrote.
they still took out 300 tanks with their 180 Challenger I-s and achieved the only reported 4km tank gun hit and kill.
yeah, it's almost as if the Brits knew that they'd be up shit's creek if they over-exposed themselves in ideal guerrilla territory, even with their improved armour.
MatoVuc 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh and I forgot to add, Grozney had looooooads of multi-storey buildings. Very much unlike Baghdad.
Go figure.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
Comment removed
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
'So Russian tanks should only fight in the countryside? That severely limits their...'
Bitch please
really got your head deep up your arse, haven't you?
In Grozny 1995, tank brigades had
1. no infantry or artillery support whatsoever
2. empty ERA
3. the adversary much fiercer and better trained than iraqi sand niggers
4. backstabbers back in the HQ and the office
lastly - no tank is fit for urban environment.
Notice that in 1999, the same tanks were used - none of the problems of 1995.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@NosferatuAaacaado Let's leave racial slurs out of this because it just makes you look very dumb.
A major problem was that their was a lot of mismanagement on the part of the Russians, and poor tactics. But I was mainly replying to what he said in the first place about it. It was a response. If you disagree with it take it up with him rather than saying "Bitch please."
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 racial slur? No.
Your argument about 1st Chechen having nothing to do with tanks? Yes.
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@NosferatuAaacaado Uh you said "Sand Ni**ers." That is a racial slur.
I was reacting to what was said about how Russian tanks are only good for open country, maneuver warfare. I never said this or that I was only reacting to it.
Like I said, Chechnya was not due to vehicle failures, but human error on a large scale.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
"No other operational tank in the world is as heavily flawed in design, concept, or results as the M1 Abrams."
Don't bullshit us Blacktail, you know that is not true on any level. What about Russian tanks in Grozny?
Can you say that the Abrams is bad after battles like 73 Easting? Or the Thunder Run? Or many of it's other engagements?
And don't feed me the same BS about Iraq being a paper tiger, Israel fought nothing but low quality enemies and it had nothing to do with their level of skill.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 "What about Russian tanks in Grozny?"
Russian tank design philosophy prioritizes the best possible performance in flat, open areas, because this is the primary topography of the Russian frontier. If you spearhead an attack on an area as cramped and built-up as Grozny with tanks designed for fighting in the countryside, losses are bound to be heavy.
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
@BlacktailDefense So Russian tanks should only fight in the countryside? That severely limits their capabilities. Why would you want a tank that can only fight in open country side when there are so many urban battles? It doesn't make sense.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
Comment removed
NosferatuAaacaado 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 "Can you say that the Abrams is bad after battles like 73 Easting?"
That wasn't a battle --- it was a slaughter, because the Republican Guard didn't have a Strategy. They just drew a line in the sand, parked on it, and left the Coalition to take the initiative. Compounding their failure to employ Maneuver Warfare was their failure to avoid becoming decisively engaged, and their literally suicidal fanaticism.
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
@BlacktailDefense It was a slaughter, and in that case it was primarily tactics that allowed the US cavalry unit to achieve such an astounding victory.
The Iraqi brigade had their tanks dug in hull down, used a minefield to protect their flank, and had tanks in reserve to counterattack (which they did but to no avail). The combined maneuver warfare with the tanks in reserve along with fixed defenses like the minefield. And the US still had a large victory.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 From what I remember, another major factor was the fact that the Iraqis used their tanks like self-propelled artillery/mobile pillboxes due to their experiences in the Iran-Iraq War. They had little experience in using their main gun in a direct fire role.
Flugabwehrkanone 6 months ago
@Flugabwehrkanone Yes that is true, they did. But that was actually more so in the 2003 Invasion, when they knew from experience that they can't stand up to Coalition armor. Also, they used a lot of small ambush attacks too to try to eliminate advantages in range and their lack of fire power due to inadequate ammunition.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 "...Israel fought nothing but low quality enemies..."
I doubt there are very many tankers from the Arab-Israeli Wars that would agree --- from either side.
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
@BlacktailDefense Do you think that Israel did fight well trained enemies? What about the lack of Egyptian alert on the opening day of the 6 Day War? Or in 1973 when the Egyptians decided to leave their air defense umbrella? Or in 1982 when the Syrians had mobile AA missiles in the Beqaa Valley, yet never moved them, resulting in their immediate destruction?
And don't even get me started on their ground tactics.
Israel did in fact fight inferior enemies so stop using the "paper tiger" line.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 "Do you think that Israel did fight well trained enemies? What about the lack of Egyptian alert on the opening day of the 6 Day War? Or in 1973 when the Egyptians decided to leave their air defense umbrella? Or in 1982 when the Syrians had mobile AA missiles in the Beqaa Valley, yet never moved them, resulting in their immediate destruction?"
I never said they were led by brilliant *strategists*.
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
@BlacktailDefense Yes, and strategy and leadership (in small units and as a whole) is sometimes more important than what equipment you are using. So yes, Israel did face poor enemies.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 "So yes, Israel did face poor enemies."
'Poor enemies' don't achieve results like these;
"The people reacting to the missiles were trying to maneuver, trying to escape them, to confuse the missile by zigzagging. Half an hour after we arrived in the area, we were more or less finished as a company."
--- Lt. Yuval Neria, IDF tank company CO, who lost 9 of his 11 tanks to Egyptian ATGMs
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Here's another account of Israel's "poor enemies";
"I remember one Egyptian. He was a very brave guy, he stood in front of my tank with an RPG and fired. It struck my tank and struck me and I fell down into the tank."
--- Maj. Chaim Adini, IDF tank battalion CO, who lost 9 tanks to the Egyptians
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Another Israeli recounts the battle with "poor enemies" in 1973;
"Our effort to bring tanks up to the Canal to brevent the erection of a bridge cost us very dear. We hadn't anticipated that."
--- Moshe Dayan, Israeli MoD in 1973
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlacktailDefense "Our effort to bring tanks up to the Canal to brevent the erection of a bridge cost us very dear. We hadn't anticipated that."
That is a mistake made on the IDF's side, having nothing to do with the enemy.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Here's one of those "poor enemies" recounting his "failures";
"[IDF Col.] Yagouri made tactical mistakes, Our troops and tanks were all well dug in. Yagouri sent out 10 tanks, and we destroyed 7. Then he sent 13, and we destroyed 4.
It was men against tanks. Frequently, they were knocking out a tank from the rear after it had gone by. That takes courage and determination. The Israelis were wiped out in 3 minutes, having scarcely fired a shot."
--- Egyptian General Abu A'Saada
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 You also failed to notice that these "poor enemies" solved the Suez Canal dike dilemma by a stroke of brilliance. Instead of relying on guns or explosives to level it, they brought in 200 fire pumps on rafts, and literally washed away the dikes.
Anwar Sadat had anticipated that this operation would cost thousands of lives; instead, the Egyptians lost exactly 208 men.
"The whole operation was a magnificent symphony played by thousands of men."
--- General el Shazl, Egyptian Army
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
@BlacktailDefense "You also failed to notice that these "poor enemies" solved the Suez Canal dike dilemma by a stroke of brilliance. Instead of relying on guns or explosives to level it, they brought in 200 fire pumps on rafts, and literally washed away the dikes."
That doesn't have anything to do with the actual encounters with enemy forces. It was a great idea to do this but still has nothing to do with training and troop quality.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Let's also not forget that;
"...apart from the particulars of defense, the Israelis had little respect for the fighting abilities of the Arabs. After 4 wars fought against it's neighbors since 1948, the little nation felt supremely confident that it would prevail in battle, no matter how ardently it's enemies wanted their territory back."
--- The Armored Fist, Time-Life Books, Pg. 23-24
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
@BlacktailDefense "...apart from the particulars of defense, the Israelis had little respect for the fighting abilities of the Arabs. After 4 wars fought against it's neighbors since 1948, the little nation felt supremely confident that it would prevail in battle, no matter how ardently it's enemies wanted their territory back."
You even presented something that says the Israeli's had little respect for the fighting abilities of the Arabs, proving that they were inferior enemies.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 yeah, until they got their asses handed to them. You aren't really this dismissive of perceived "inferior"opponents in real life, are you? If so, please, try your best to avoid actual fighting.
MatoVuc 5 months ago
@franknbeans4761 And finally, regarding these "poor enemies";
"During the first 3 days of the war, the Israeli Armored Corps had received a bloody education, and the futile assaults against the Egyptian bridgehead were not renewed after October 8. The dismissive attitude toward the enemy was gone."
--- The Armored Fist, Time-Life Books, Pg. 36, Paragraph 1
Wow, that's TOTALLY the kind of result that bad strategy and leadership produces!
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
@BlacktailDefense "You don't go around disrespecting your enemy. That's how stupid men die" - Sonny Puzikas, former Spetznas
MatoVuc 6 months ago
@BlacktailDefense "During the first 3 days of the war, the Israeli Armored Corps had received a bloody education, and the futile assaults against the Egyptian bridgehead were not renewed after October 8. The dismissive attitude toward the enemy was gone."
This is due to surprise and many other reasons. The actual poor decisions and training made by the Arabs greatly outweighed the good.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 i will admit that the Arab troops were likely far better trained for parading than actual fighting in comparison to the Israelies, but are you really trying to tell me that they managed to achieve surprise attacks for 3 days as a fluke?
we are talking about the Yom Kipur War here, the war that prompted significant restructuring within the IDF
MatoVuc 5 months ago
@MatoVuc I would say that the surprise attacks of the Arabs largely reflected the actual strategy of their battle plan, not the unit training.
For example, in 1973 on the Golan heights, there were only a handful of IDF tanks up against hundreds of Syrian tanks due to surprise being achieved, but were destroyed when they actually engaged the Israeli's.
franknbeans4761 5 months ago
@franknbeans4761 i'll give you that point only very slightly. again, the Israelis were no doubt better trained than the Egyptians or the Syrians, but come on, man. If you really are a serviceman as you claim, you should know that even the most competent commanders can do only so much if the troops they command aren't capable of following their orders properly.
MatoVuc 5 months ago
@MatoVuc I am actually an officer candidate, I am not active, but whatever.
Yes, you do have to have good command and control, and I am not saying the enemies Israel faced were unbelievably terrible, I am just saying that they were comparable to the enemy the US fought in 1991 and 2003. And even then, Syrians were still in Iraq fighting US troops during and after the 2003 Invasion.
franknbeans4761 5 months ago
@franknbeans4761 if you say so. I'd give at least the Egyptians more credit than Saddam's army, particularly in 2003. after all, in 1991 his forces had just come out of a war with Iran, which provided them experience, but also meant they needed to fill the ranks with pretty much new recruits, so their level of training was far from good.
in 2003, it was mostly a new, inexperienced army since most of the army was decimated in the Gulf war and many experienced high ranks retiring in the 12 years
MatoVuc 5 months ago
@MatoVuc After the Iran Iraq war, Iraq had new and fresh recruits, but had NCO's that had a lot of experience.
In 2003, the Iraqi army had the advantage of already going up against the American military and knowing tactics, equipment, and many other things. And it showed in their tactics (tank ambushes, attacking supply columns, etc).
So it is all really hard to say.
franknbeans4761 5 months ago
@franknbeans4761 "Israel did in fact fight inferior enemies so stop using the "paper tiger" line."
If that's the case, than it doesn't say much about the US Army's enthusiasm for incorporating many of the lessons leaned from the IDF.
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
@BlacktailDefense No, my main point is that it has no reflection on military capabilities.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@BlacktailDefense And, if you still say that Israel did in fact face very tough, well training, forces; then the US must of too. Not only did Iraq send units to fight Israel in multiple wars, but Syria and other countries sent units to Iraq to fight the US.
There were many Syrians that were found in the Al Anbar province and they fought during the Battle for Baghdad. So which is it then?
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 "Not only did Iraq send units to fight Israel in multiple wars, but Syria and other countries sent units to Iraq to fight the US."
The Syrians were on the Coalition's side. They committed the 9th Armored Division to the Joint Forces Command North.
"There were many Syrians that were found in the Al Anbar province and they fought during the Battle for Baghdad."
So what you're saying is, they were from Syria, therefore they all had military training? That's Non-Sequitur.
BlacktailDefense 6 months ago
@BlacktailDefense I was referring to the second gulf war. And yes, most of the Syrian insurgents did in fact have Syrian military training.
Also, look at the battle over the Golan in 1973. The IDF had only a handful of tanks that fought off wave after wave of Syrian attacks. Even IDF commanders said that the Syrian tanks would not maneuver and only charge head first at them, making them prime targets. Plus, the Syrians had terrible positions to attack with. And just like in Iraq, the ........
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@BlacktailDefense .....forces that Syria had to fight were using poor quality rounds. The Israeli's on the other hand had HESH rounds that were able to defeat the Syrian tanks. Sound familiar to the DU rounds the Abrams was using verse the inferior Iraqi rounds?
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
I think infantry fire support could be provided by M113s equipped with the ARES 75mm autocannon. I remember reading somewhere that in a simulated Fulda Gap engagement, these vehicles, when firing 3 sabot round bursts, had a 2-3x better chance of success than an M1. Obviously, this weapon could fire HE, APERS, etc. as well.
Flugabwehrkanone 6 months ago
@Flugabwehrkanone This should be in an assault gun configuration because a Gavin with a turret is tall as hell (and essentially a Bradley).
Flugabwehrkanone 6 months ago
@Flugabwehrkanone An ARES firing 3 round burst of 75mm autocannon rounds would run out of ammunition very quickly. And I doubt it had the penetration of a M829A3. Maybe it was better with penetration than the M1 munitions at the time of the testing but not today.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Wouldn't that be counterbalanced by the M113's greater internal volume and the smaller size of the 75mm rounds? Also, the ARES had a muzzle velocity equivalent to the 105mm L7 and could penetrate a T-72's frontal armor at 2000m. What I found most impressive was that a burst of four shots was enough to bring down a fighter flying evasively at 4000m.
Flugabwehrkanone 6 months ago
@Flugabwehrkanone But an M113 does not have the protection that is anywhere close to the Abrams. And even then, a M829A3 still has more punch than the bursts of 75mm rounds.
And I don't think there would be any effectiveness against Kontakt-5 armor when using 75mm rounds.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The M113's protection would be its ease of concealment. Perhaps one round is weaker, but the idea is to drill through the same spot. That's why the GAU-8 can kill tanks. And on the contrary, ERA is ineffective if hit in the same spot more than once.