Instead of attacking the city from all directions they attacked from north. In books said that it's because dirty government left the retreat road on the south. Insurgents knew about all our positions because they knew our radio code and heared all our talks. A lot of terrorists fought in Ossetia, Transnistria before, they knew Grozny and our army had old soviet maps it was nother problem. That's why uneffective command isn't the main issue that caused defeat.
You know, in Russia there are many censored books about the real history of Chechen War. Yelstin, the first Russian president made a government full of bandits and his own target was to steal as much money as he could. Our military system was broken at that moment. Generals were unexperienced idiots. All experienced ones got sacked. I said about Yeltsin, money and bandits. They sold a lot of guns and left a lot of tanks and warehouses full of rpgs there. It's a dirty war.
When you consider the fact that these armored bridgades had been fighting against Iran back in the 80s thus having experience you see that this was an amazing victory, of course it makes you wonder about the leadership these soldiers were following - which evidentially was not up to pace with anyone else.
This doesn't mean that Russian tanks are crap. Read about two Grozny battles and compare statistics, there were the same conditions, but in the second battle, tanks were used cleverly and got ERA, had BMP and infantry support. In the first battle they were alone in the city full of RPGs. If Abrams will be in the same conditions it will fail too.
@sticksjke Yes thats correct, the first battle of Grozny tanks were sent in to an urban area with out infantry and air support as a show of force to frighten rebels, instead they were caught in an RPG ambush. The 2nd battle the tanks were deployed correctly with infantry, reconaisance, artillery, BMP and airsuport and appropriate urban warefare tactics with a much different outcome.
@sticksjke It seems like Grozny is a poor picture of Russian armor and didn't show how effective it was. But it did show a lot of problems in how Russia conducted their wars and how it needed improvement. Which in many ways is worse.
Just imagine the alternative, if in 1990, the US armed forces going against the russians
The US would still win, but its not like the russians would get whacked out in 4 days like the iraqis did, probably it would take 4 months or more, seeing the russians were WAY more trained, equipped and motivated than the Iraqis
And there is also the possibility that the US, if they fought against the russian army instead of Iraq i 1990
The US might have gone to battle against T80s tanks, which in 1990, were equal (or almost equal) to the abrams the US army had, and way better than the m60 patton tanks the US marines had, I dont want to offend anyone, but I think the marine tank battalions would be, to some degree, screwed if they went against T80 tank battalions
Bush Sr said if we had gone into Baghdad and taken out Saddam in 1991, it would have destabilized Iraq and increased terrorist activities in the entire region, including waves of suicide bombers targeting our troops. Furthermore, the UN only authorized the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq. We did that and destroyed the Iraqi military competely, ensuring that they wouldn't be able to threaten their neighbors again.
We stopped there and declared a ceasefire after the liberation of Kuwait.
@Hperman09 This war was a provocation by US-backed Kuwait against a promising country, your ally during the Iran-Iraq war. Once you supplied Saddam against Islamist Iran, then the greater problem, but when the war ended Iraq inevitably became your enemy: its increasing economic and military power couldn't be ignored. It SHOULD HAVE been ruined. There is a simple rule: all independent Arab regimes that dare to claim a leading role become victims of foreign aggression. Think why.
@Talshet Alright, let's do a little math here. So 9 M1A1HA Abrams along with 12 M3 Bradley CFVs destroyed 28 T-72 Lion of Babylon tanks and 16 BMP-1 & BMP-2 IFVs. Let's assume as you said the domestically produced Russian T-72s are twice as good as the crappy export version (yes, i agree that they were very crappy and under-equipped and supplied w/ low-quality ammo and parts). So, roughly 9 M1A1HA abrams are equivelant to 14 domestically produced T-72s. hm. I wonder, M1A2SEPv3 vs T-72 or T90?
@juren1414 The export T-72M was quality of T-54, and i dont get the point of your view. M1a2SEP vs T-90? so what? even T-72 with BM-42 can destroy M1A2, because ammunition doesnt change his penetration when it gets fired from T-72.Who has the first shot will always get the uper hand,propably he could destroy all optronics of other Tank after that the tank is blind without any capability for fire control systeme.
The T-72 is a good tank, but it was originally designed to counter new Western tanks of the 70s like the M60 Pattons(USA) & the Chieftains(UK). The main reason for the Iraqis failure was that m1 abrams launched surprise attack on da IRG, also da IRG were not in a defensive position(trenches,mines), dey were originally suposed 2 counter attak the offensiv on iraqi ruled kuwait, well i guess its war & unfortunately all is fair in Love & Warfare...
@147saad, I agree The Iraqis (with an older less tha top of the line military arsenal) got screw up by a modern military coalition & clumsy leadership by Hussein. He had a chance to retreat and save his army in Kuwait, but waited too long to do that.
Imagine being an Iraqi and dying in 1991. Imagine people watching the tank you served in burning on Youtube 20 years later. I love the information age, but sometimes it really depresses me.
Your country attacks all the other countries only for the interests and the cover is a defense of civilians, etc. Like you attacked Panama, Dominicana, Iraq etc
@xM0jo11x That's because we don't particularly care. The M1 series of tanks is one of the most powerful in the world, and we don't exactly have a shortage of fuel in these parts.
Come on Americans u know that haters are just gonna hate on us who gives a fuck if they got beef they can try to take it out on us in a fight, then they'll see why we're top of the food chain
@Tervaification But if you destroy 100 T-72s for the every Abrams they suddenly aren't such a bargain. Abrams gun had the range. In open desert they would slap in reverse to stay out of enemy range and pick off the T-72s at leisure. Russia designed their tank thinking of the export market. They sold thousands. After the war they couldn't give them away. The factory was reduced to building them without turrets and putting a bulldozer blade on the front for road construction.
@Tervaification: The T-72 costs about 1,4 Million, and they were cheap Monkey Models, the M1A2 costs 6,2 Million $, but there were 3000 (!!!) M1 & M1A1 Tanks in the Gulf War, it isn't cheap, especially the maintenance!
@TankNutJohn89 I will hate the americans and their goverment because they greedy bastards always trying to destroy and keep war against small countries with oil, or trying to bring democracy to communist countries like vietname,but these people never want democracy,so they killed thousands of thousand to kill communism cause americans are afraid of all friendly and freedom and non conflict ideas like communism.Thats why the whole world hates americans is fucking war loving country
@Talshet: You're hating 3 Million people because about 20.000 are making mistakes? Without the US there would be no Russia, no Germany, Libya would be still under Qaddafis Dikatorship & much more. Russia fought the Taliban in the 80' we're still do, since we are doing this, there is more safety in Afghanistan. Why the Hell i should like people who hate me & my country?
@TankNutJohn89 Afghanistan and IRaq is more destroyed after americans go to this countries,Iraq and Afghanistan were more safty before wars than now.If you have nothing learned from WW2, Russians pushed germans back before you even joined the World War, not Americans won the WW2 the Russians done, they was first in Berlin they cleared the East Berlin first before you even got close enough to Center,Russians have the burned bones of Hitler not you.Russia won WW2.USA sucks at all.
@Talshet Yea, we suck yet WE'RE the most powerful country in the world and always have been. We wanted to and ALMOST swept through Russia and took it over, but Patton couldn't get permission. Grow the fuck up, and look past all the propaganda that is blown into the air by so many people. Grow the fuck up and realize that WE the PEOPLE of the U.S.A. have no control over our government anymore. Our GOVERNMENT sucks, not us.
@colorblindvids The most powerful country in the world?Dont make me laugh, so tell me what makes you to the most powerful country on earth?Maybe you dont notice your problems in your country, your goverment sucks to keep up your economy you always keep wars with small 3rd world countries with oil, you always was and be afraid of freedom,life living and souveran ideas like communism,you bastards let the world think communism is the pure evil direct from hell,your military is weak.
@colorblindvids Your military is just a joke.You have about the half number of Tanks as russia and about 40% smaller than China.You pricks always underrate russian technologies,you always ignore real facts,russian technology destroyed and showed the superioty of your unrelaible and ineffective weapons.Vietname your own soldiers prefered AK47 cause M16 is piece of shit unrelaible always jamming and less lethal had almost no infect of oppenent with hit result.
@Talshet You are joking right? Seriously. Who cares how many tanks Russia has. Today's tehnology is no longer about numbers, but about technology itself. Run 1000 tanks thru a desert, all will be gone within hours from air support. Jets from the air wont even have to get close to the tanks. Take em out from the air. AK47 are good, but M16s are now the future, specially in desert and open areas. Close combat, yeah AK47 could win.
@Cornelp1 Wars are always about numbers.All kind of Wars without asymetric (urban,guerilla) warfare showed that quantity always overweight quality.And maybe you are one of this people who is not informed well.AK47 was produced about 5 billion times,its passed the AK74 was produced about 3 billion times.Dont think they all got only the AK47 with less accuracy than M16,the AK74 has 3-4cm better accuracy on 100 meter targets than M16A2.Russians left about 20 million weapons in Afghanistan
@alekzander2010 The AK47 was built 5 billion times during cold war google it you will find old articles about it, AK74 2-3 billion times produced,HK G3 was 600 million times produced each 3rd weapon is an G3 in africa.Trust me or make researches people are crazy when it goes around weapons.Michael Kalaschnikov could be the richest man on earth about 3 times richer than Bill Gates.But other times other mentality, he is a legend and his name will survive longer than any can imagine
@Talshet you are a moron, the us armed forces have over 1.4 million active troops, the russians about 300,000 poorly trained conscripts, we have over 7,000 tanks the russian have 6000 active tanks, not to mention that the russian army officers are the most corrupt in the world, again your facts are just wrong, our men loved the m16a1 in vietnam, the ak47 is old thats why not even the russian use it anymore
@colorblindvids Remember Iraq war were even 50 years old RPG7 with the most useless Warheads of 330mm RHA destroyed lot of M1 Abrams,the abrams armor is effective only at turret front but the pan is weaker than old T72 (1080mm RHA) M1 pan (860mm RHA).And remember your so overrated FIM92 Stingers its unrelaible and absolutly ineffective,in 10 years only 72 Mi24 were destroyed, and only 20-40 through stinger, the rest was taken down with big calibre weapons like .50 cal,14,5,23mm.
@colorblindvids Remember WW2 were you was fucked from 4 times smaller tank division army of Germans.One of there Tigers achieved more than 200 destroyed Sherman,Churchill Tanks,but our T34/85 showed superior technology.Russians cleared first there east side of Berlin and they got the burned bones of Hitler,they plant the first Flag in Berlin not you,the Soviets won the WW2 not america.You have been only the half of the war in Europe.
@Talshet Remember the cold war,ingeneer and scientists achievments,Soviets were always the guys with better technology.T34/85,T43,T54/55 the first 100mm Smooth bore canon wich was about twice powerfull than any else.T64 the first tank with composite armor it was the best of his time it cant be destroyed through any existing tank.T72 is untill now one of the most succesfull tanks on earth,fires 1km farther than M1,the modernized T72UB are about the same quality as T90 12k tanks exist.
@Talshet The past is the past. This is the NOW. What matters now is, THE NOW. We cant forget the past, but we dont fight with the weapons of the past, so who cares what went on in the past. Its a matter of what we have NOW.
@Talshet range on the gun isnt everything, espically since russian made optics and stablizers are inferior compared to nato systems, besides tank launched atgms were pioneered by the us in the m55 sheridan, their not as effective as ap rounds, they are slow, and leave the tank extremely vulnerable to attack, the t90 rha vs he may be around 1080mm vs he, but the abrams vs he is about 1300mm, the abrams has about 900 rha vs ke while the t90 is around 780 to 800 mm rha
@Talshet I remember when our infantry CRUSHED the Germans, and was poised to crush you. The only reason you could make it to Berlin was because the ALLIES had them stretched so thin.
@colorblindvids If you're going to use historical facts to argue against someone, I suggest you get them right. History actually says the only reason the Allies could get to Germany is because the Soviets stretched them so thing. around 70% of the Germany military was on the eastern front
@ThatAdelaideGuy Oh yea, I forgot man. I forgot that we liberated half of Europe and eliminated their chances of mass French conscription. AND kicked their ass in North Africa.
@colorblindvids Your information are not correct the Wehrmacht concentrated about 2/3 of their military resources on eastern front,Hitler always feared russians,after 43 as Soviets started to push Germans fast back he decided to increase the number of his tanks and infantry on eastern front, russians had more opponent forces to defeat than you.SU won the WW2.
@Talshet a NOOO get your facts straight, on the eastern front the tigers and panthers dominated t34s and j2s, in france and italy, soviet numbers won the day, the t34/85 was not a technologically advanced tank, it had sloped armor, a diesel engine and a decent gun, that's it, the sherman at least had good optics. the germans laughted at the t34 and how basic it was and russian training was pitiful, oh and after ww2 the sherman outperformed the t34 in korea and the middle east, even the t55
@Talshet: What? Taliban, Al-Qaida & other Terrorists destroyed their Country, Iraq's Civilians would be still killed by Saddam if he done nothing against him. In Afghanistan 60 people died by terrorists before our intervention, now its under 20, its more safe. We had still sent Russia Weapons & more, Russia won with 13 million casualties? We fought Japan AND Germany & had 220k losses. Both won the War. Even Italy won.
@Talshet While Middle East is true, not so much for the Russians/USA. Russians were worse then Germans. They killed more people than anyone really knows. Every country between Russian and Germany, Russians destroyed, murdered people, raped women and killed children. So please, dont speak to highly of Russians. Thanks.
Well, of course, the M1's will eat the T-72's for breakfast. The M1's armor design. Is to absorb the enemy shell. Causing very little damage. Plus with all it's features and gadgets. Those. T-72's dug their own graves. But no tank is Invincible. It ake a hell of alotta fire. To even try to take out an Abrams.
A big reason the Coaliton won wasnt just because they didnt have great tech. but most of them where consprits and didnt wont to fight,sad they had to die
@Thomahawk5000 You aren't suppose to know anything...that's why they teach you. I want to be an M1 crewman as well but in the Marines which means I probably won't even get into armor. But the Army trains both Marines and the Army with tanks.
@Thomahawk5000 Btw just so you know there's hardly any Abrams tanks in Afghanistan and we're out of Iraq soon so I'm guessing your chances of getting into armor might be slim. Not sure though, might get lucky. I know because I wanted to be a tanker and that's what my recruiter tells me.
SuperNaturalJump2012, YouTube, Over 5 foot vertical! My Head by a 12&1/2 foot ceiling! Super Vertical Elevation! SupremeVerticalJump,YouTube Everyone was amazed at the incredible leaping ability and agility!UltraVerticalJump,YouTube, 4 feet vertical! Really soon I'll be eye level with the rim! SuperVerticalJump,YouTube,Amazing!4 feet vertical elevation, my head almost touches the Rim & By itself the video cam is magically following the incredible vertical movements!"
@oblivionps3fan If the chinese cant drive a car what makes you think they can drive a beast like that... so we have nothing to worry about if we ever go to war... im american and i approve this message :)
Notice how the they overstate the T-72 and the enemy awesomeness to boast their own greatness? It's damn T-72; what chance does it have against a computerized Abrams beast?
@DemocraticOrder A modernized t-72 is just as good as an M1 abrams. The Iraqi's just didn't have modernized tanks. And most of their tanks were t-55s or t-62s anyway.
@KaiserReich98 Do not give the same speech about Monkey Models. A modernized T-72 is still not as good as an Abrams. The T-90 is very comparable but a T-72? That is bullshit. Explain to me how an Abrams fired a DU round through the turret of an Iraqi T-72 and it penetrated out the other side and knocked out another T-72. Or how an Abrams destroyed 3 Iraqi T-72 tanks in 10 seconds. An upgraded T-72 does not have shit on an Abrams.
@franknbeans4761 The t-90 IS a modernized t-72. And I never said the t-72 was comparable to the M1a2, I said it was compareable to the M1. You see theres a big differance between fighting Iraqi t-72s and Russian ones.
@KaiserReich98 Oh gotcha, I misunderstood that then. Too many people just use M1 and are not specific enough.
But I agree with what you said then. However you cannot fully upgrade a T-72 into a T-90. It required a different chassis and other different components so you cannot exactly upgrade a T-72 to a T-90.
@DemocraticOrder The T-72 was designed to combat the M-60 and the early M1, that is what it ran into and that is what it lost out badly to (The T-72 was marketed as being a match for the early Merkava as well).
@DemocraticOrder Have you ever trained your whole career to fight Soviet steel then stare down the barrel of a T-72, not really knowing what to expect? Not to mention having a shit load of bradleys to protect. When a little rattler surprises you and is trying to bite you, it looks like a 5 foot monster until you kill it. Hind site is 20/20. Easy to be negative when it wasn't your ass and your friends asses on the line.
@Rottencloud Sorry if I offense you, I don't mean any disrespect to the tankers out there. What I mean is clearly those Abrams commanders are boasting. Don't you think so?
@DemocraticOrder the T-72 (and T-64, T-80) were supposed to fight against abrams tanks in european theatre of war. T-72 was main battle tank of Warsaw Pact forces. so whats your point?
@DemocraticOrder: Well.. the T-72 isn't a bad Tank, and the Abrams is overrated sometimes, they weren't High-Tech as in 2011. It depends on the Crew, and even a T-72 can take out a Abrams.
@TankNutJohn89 well a T-72 has yet to take out a Abrams....infact no tank has taken out a Abrams. Even other Abrams have a hard time taking them out. Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 are very comparable and some research will say the Challenger 2 may even be better in the defense armor. I would say even a top line Russian T-72 would have a hard time taking a Abrams out frontally.
@jtoatoktoe: It depends on the Crew, even a russian T-90 can't kill the M1A2 through the turret-front, in Desert Storm, M1's & M1A1's were hit by T-72's at 300m & were not killed.
@TankNutJohn89 I agree, but you can't compare Russian and Iraqi T-72's...Russian ones were much better, firing better ammunition, but in the end the result would be the same. Abrams is just a better tank all around.
@jtoatoktoe: Of course you can compare them, they had the same engine & the same cannon, the ammo was outdated but even the newest russian T-72 ammo in 1991 couldn't destroy the abrams turret armor. Iraq had T-72M1, a modified Export-Variant too.
@TankNutJohn89 What a bullshit.T72s in Iraq were downgraded export versions wich are about half powerfull as russian T72, they used solid steel KE penetrators.People like you are uneducated or just want to spread myths like M1 is unbeatable.M1 was even destroyed often from PG7 rounds of 330mm RHA.The DU plates in turret are only protecting the sides were quarder is painted not more not less.The real russian AP/KE shells can destroy each modern Tank.Stop being hater of russians.
@Talshet: Your downgraded export Versions are Lions of Babylon, made in Iraq, i meant the T-72M1, the modernized T-72. They used old Weapons, thats why they couldn't kill the Abrams Tanks. However, the M1 & M1A1 hadn't DU-Armor. The destroyed M1A1 HA's were "mobility-killed" by IED's & destroyed by US-Forces. The Abrams isn't unbeatable. Stop being hater of americans.
@Talshet No the 3BM-42 (1985) has very little chance to kill an M1A1HA (1988). A hit around the drivers hatch or a small part of the lower front hull can. Most tanks in the USSR were using older ammo like the 3BM-22/26.
I love Russian tanks and I think that a T-90 is overall a more usefull tank because it is easier to employ and has HE ammo that the Abrams lacks. However the Abrams excels in one area and that is killing other tanks while taking a beating.
@Sharkattack48 The point though is that they don't always find the truth. One of the reasons Al Jazeera has been such a pain in the ass to the US military is that they have access to information and footage US journalists wouldn't be able to see under normal circumstances, since military escorts intentionally divert them from any sort of "inflamatory" material like civilian casualties. I'm not saying it's a broad coverup, only that you never get the full story while the war is going on...
@Sharkattack48 It's well established that US military establishment does exercise control over what the media can report. Nowadays, media cannot legally enter a warzone unless escorted by military personnel, unlike Vietnam where they just wandered around. That said, they're free to report on anything they see, but the officers in charge cherry pick both what they get to see and the information they get. There is also an incentive to report positively since future access can be denied.
Around 200 American deaths vs 30,000 Iraqi Deaths. It reminds me of the "Splended little war" in the late 1800's where the Americans sunk the entire Spanish Atlantic fleet with only 1 American death.
I'm astonished how western media twisted the truth and true facts in Gulf War. USA lost around 20 Abrams tanks (majority due to enemy fire, few due to friendly fire), plus more than 20 Bradley's. USA HAD CASUALTIES. It's funny how good western media is doing on fooling and brainwashing people about Usa's (NATO's) losses of manpower, tanks and aircraft. But, for example, when only one "enemy" tank was destroyed, western media spreaded this all over the world in a matter of seconds.
Reconstructions of combat is necessary to improve ovarall combat performance and avoid potential mistakes if they have been made. And, btw, for your info, I have served in the army as a sniper. So, WTF do I know about combat and military technology? Well, I do know quite a bit; mostly 'cause I constantly improve my knowledge about warfare and weaponry.
@brox114 nope your wrong only 4 abram tanks were destroyed the wrest of the 20 you said that were destroyed werent destroyed but damaged and were then soon refurbished and most of the abrams tanks were destroyed becouse apache pilots shot the abrams tanks on accident. maybe your media is a bunch of liars
Around 20 were damaged (most of them beyond repair); certanly much more than 4 completely destroyed with at least one crew KIA in any of those M1's.
Western media has tendency to lie about western losses because of censorship and because of keeping willingness of Usa's (NATO's) troops to fight.
Friendly fire occured only in very few incidents. Also, usa's tankers have RULE to turn the turret 180° if tank receives a critical hit (any of survived crewman out of 4 must do this).
This has been flagged as spam show
Where the iraqis russian trained?
blaketrujillo801 4 days ago
Where the iraqis russian trained?
blaketrujillo801 4 days ago
At 30:00, "the Americans didn't stand a chance."
Huh?
The Iraqis couldn't penetrate the Abrams armor, but we could penetrate theirs.
It was a turkey shoot.
charlesvan13 1 week ago
in 33 minutes !!! waw!
kr666imo 1 week ago
The 27 dislikes are ex-members of the Tawakalna Division, lol
yourass117 3 weeks ago 3
One armored platoon takes on a dug in armor brigade with clear fields of fire and wins in less than half an hour. Bad. Ass.
Rotgutify 3 weeks ago
@franknbeans4761
Instead of attacking the city from all directions they attacked from north. In books said that it's because dirty government left the retreat road on the south. Insurgents knew about all our positions because they knew our radio code and heared all our talks. A lot of terrorists fought in Ossetia, Transnistria before, they knew Grozny and our army had old soviet maps it was nother problem. That's why uneffective command isn't the main issue that caused defeat.
sticksjke 3 weeks ago
@franknbeans4761
You know, in Russia there are many censored books about the real history of Chechen War. Yelstin, the first Russian president made a government full of bandits and his own target was to steal as much money as he could. Our military system was broken at that moment. Generals were unexperienced idiots. All experienced ones got sacked. I said about Yeltsin, money and bandits. They sold a lot of guns and left a lot of tanks and warehouses full of rpgs there. It's a dirty war.
sticksjke 3 weeks ago
When you consider the fact that these armored bridgades had been fighting against Iran back in the 80s thus having experience you see that this was an amazing victory, of course it makes you wonder about the leadership these soldiers were following - which evidentially was not up to pace with anyone else.
schizoidboy 4 weeks ago
@GooRooGo
This doesn't mean that Russian tanks are crap. Read about two Grozny battles and compare statistics, there were the same conditions, but in the second battle, tanks were used cleverly and got ERA, had BMP and infantry support. In the first battle they were alone in the city full of RPGs. If Abrams will be in the same conditions it will fail too.
sticksjke 1 month ago 2
@sticksjke Yes thats correct, the first battle of Grozny tanks were sent in to an urban area with out infantry and air support as a show of force to frighten rebels, instead they were caught in an RPG ambush. The 2nd battle the tanks were deployed correctly with infantry, reconaisance, artillery, BMP and airsuport and appropriate urban warefare tactics with a much different outcome.
ColdWarWarriors 4 weeks ago
@sticksjke It seems like Grozny is a poor picture of Russian armor and didn't show how effective it was. But it did show a lot of problems in how Russia conducted their wars and how it needed improvement. Which in many ways is worse.
franknbeans4761 4 weeks ago
@sticksjke
The soviet-made T-72 tanks the iraqis had in 1990 were not the same as the ones the russian army had
The iraqi T72s were a VERY watered-down version of the russian ones
The russian ones had better crews and armor
Just like the Abrams the saudis have, they have less armor and lack depleted uranium ammo, like the US ones have
Otherwise, if those T72 in 73 eastings were of the russian army, that would be another story, it would be an evenly (or almost evenly) fight
948L0 6 days ago
@sticksjke
Just imagine the alternative, if in 1990, the US armed forces going against the russians
The US would still win, but its not like the russians would get whacked out in 4 days like the iraqis did, probably it would take 4 months or more, seeing the russians were WAY more trained, equipped and motivated than the Iraqis
948L0 6 days ago
@sticksjke
And there is also the possibility that the US, if they fought against the russian army instead of Iraq i 1990
The US might have gone to battle against T80s tanks, which in 1990, were equal (or almost equal) to the abrams the US army had, and way better than the m60 patton tanks the US marines had, I dont want to offend anyone, but I think the marine tank battalions would be, to some degree, screwed if they went against T80 tank battalions
948L0 6 days ago
@sticksjke
But not as screwed as the sherman tank battalions were when they went against Panther/Tiger battalions
Or as the japanese tank battalions were when they went against the marine tank battalions
948L0 6 days ago
what mean turned down V mark at the tank body? it's chevron or what?
fightingfalcon3000 1 month ago
real tanks are hard to aim . i prefer left clicking
erti655 1 month ago
in this battle the americans only lost 2 men and 1 tank
dinoattacker234 1 month ago
There you go, American fire power at work.... the battle proven M1 Abrams.
Doesumama 1 month ago in playlist Military & Documentary
is this Battlefield 3 everyone talking about?
van0202 1 month ago
Look at the spacing of the tanks and the assault/patrol. Pretty soon tanks will be useless.
I like the new styles better. Tanks are almost outdated now.
Im all for spearheading a formation like that in wedge hahaha. Cut right through it or echelon. It all depends.
DarkPrinceNH5570 1 month ago
I am in this video...... I was there....
bwest1869 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
Hopefully they will meet equivalent enemy in the future with many lost of them. Later on they will use their power wisely.
nrimorahardjo 1 month ago
@nrimorahardjo An understandable point of view, however, I hope we will be able to learn without suffering losses.
fadedflage 1 month ago
The Iraqis had the t72M, which stands for "monkey model,' which was a complete joke compared to the updated Russian t72's.
Yahooblue42 1 month ago
Bush Sr said if we had gone into Baghdad and taken out Saddam in 1991, it would have destabilized Iraq and increased terrorist activities in the entire region, including waves of suicide bombers targeting our troops. Furthermore, the UN only authorized the liberation of Kuwait from Iraq. We did that and destroyed the Iraqi military competely, ensuring that they wouldn't be able to threaten their neighbors again.
We stopped there and declared a ceasefire after the liberation of Kuwait.
Hperman09 1 month ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hperman09 This war was a provocation by US-backed Kuwait against a promising country, your ally during the Iran-Iraq war. Once you supplied Saddam against Islamist Iran, then the greater problem, but when the war ended Iraq inevitably became your enemy: its increasing economic and military power couldn't be ignored. It SHOULD HAVE been ruined. There is a simple rule: all independent Arab regimes that dare to claim a leading role become victims of foreign aggression. Think why.
BabylonianSage 4 weeks ago
2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment rules!! TOUJOURS PRET!!
jerichotres2010 1 month ago
@Talshet Alright, let's do a little math here. So 9 M1A1HA Abrams along with 12 M3 Bradley CFVs destroyed 28 T-72 Lion of Babylon tanks and 16 BMP-1 & BMP-2 IFVs. Let's assume as you said the domestically produced Russian T-72s are twice as good as the crappy export version (yes, i agree that they were very crappy and under-equipped and supplied w/ low-quality ammo and parts). So, roughly 9 M1A1HA abrams are equivelant to 14 domestically produced T-72s. hm. I wonder, M1A2SEPv3 vs T-72 or T90?
juren1414 2 months ago
@juren1414 The export T-72M was quality of T-54, and i dont get the point of your view. M1a2SEP vs T-90? so what? even T-72 with BM-42 can destroy M1A2, because ammunition doesnt change his penetration when it gets fired from T-72.Who has the first shot will always get the uper hand,propably he could destroy all optronics of other Tank after that the tank is blind without any capability for fire control systeme.
Talshet 1 month ago
@Talshet The AK47 was not produced 5 BILLION times. The number is closer to 100 million.
joshperry234 2 months ago
Something about not having a British narrator makes these documentaries less legitimate...
thehootz 2 months ago 27
Sure were brave, those republican guard units. Stood and fought repeatedly, knowing that they were outclassed.
boosra 2 months ago
Looks like martial law isn't going to be piece of cake to resist during depopulation false flag event coming up?
1G3001 2 months ago
HO LY SHIT! That's truly amazing
999lifegoes 2 months ago
jump my ass. saddams tanks couldnt do shit even if they had the chance
sharki9876 2 months ago
Comment removed
arai59 2 months ago
fuck those comment below me
rocketman5011 2 months ago
The T-72 is a good tank, but it was originally designed to counter new Western tanks of the 70s like the M60 Pattons(USA) & the Chieftains(UK). The main reason for the Iraqis failure was that m1 abrams launched surprise attack on da IRG, also da IRG were not in a defensive position(trenches,mines), dey were originally suposed 2 counter attak the offensiv on iraqi ruled kuwait, well i guess its war & unfortunately all is fair in Love & Warfare...
147saad 2 months ago
@147saad, I agree The Iraqis (with an older less tha top of the line military arsenal) got screw up by a modern military coalition & clumsy leadership by Hussein. He had a chance to retreat and save his army in Kuwait, but waited too long to do that.
Wolfen443 2 months ago
From 3:00 onward are what used to be people...
stchaltin 2 months ago
Imagine being an Iraqi and dying in 1991. Imagine people watching the tank you served in burning on Youtube 20 years later. I love the information age, but sometimes it really depresses me.
stchaltin 2 months ago
To everybody who thinks that USA is Peace loving country i suggest to watch this:
watch?v=8XE4eRiKrz8
vormanokarol 2 months ago
@vormanokarol Naw we aint peace loving, wel fuck you up......
crooklynsince1983 2 months ago
either them or us bf3 reference right there
jayboy427 2 months ago
2:10 9 Abrams knocked out 28 Tanks, 16 APCs and 39 trucks. Dayum.
oiaughwea 2 months ago in playlist Military
Your country attacks all the other countries only for the interests and the cover is a defense of civilians, etc. Like you attacked Panama, Dominicana, Iraq etc
vormanokarol 2 months ago
I condemn yours government and bandit bankers
vormanokarol 3 months ago
thes americans always brag but yet they dont tell the bad things about the tank like how the abrams is a gas guzzler
xM0jo11x 3 months ago
@xM0jo11x That's because we don't particularly care. The M1 series of tanks is one of the most powerful in the world, and we don't exactly have a shortage of fuel in these parts.
vivamusrisus 3 months ago
Come on Americans u know that haters are just gonna hate on us who gives a fuck if they got beef they can try to take it out on us in a fight, then they'll see why we're top of the food chain
F5xToRefresh 3 months ago
@F5xToRefresh HAHHAHAHHAHAA no comment.
vormanokarol 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hey i just got some body armour from the gulf war but is their any chance it has picked up some raditaion from the uranium depleted rounds?
sspecialairsservice 3 months ago
and all the propaganda said that all arabs are terrorist and more, and you fight for freedom, but who started that? who attacked first?
vormanokarol 3 months ago
@vormanokarol saddam hussein.. dumbass
NorteXIV813 3 months ago
@vormanokarol
Cite your information.
GoSuNiguy 3 months ago
like your country attacked somalia,liban,panama,haiti,sudan,iraq, afghanistan, libya etc.
vormanokarol 3 months ago
Europe created your country don't forget about it.
vormanokarol 3 months ago
watch?v=TFquHFH0Dxo
It's a video about your peace loving government
vormanokarol 3 months ago
Face it, the M1A1 is a superior design. That's why we had the drop.
somercet1 3 months ago
Remove our troops and bomb the towel headed slime ball fucks.
RuskiHomie 3 months ago in playlist iqar1989-1992
H.R. McMasters... One of the very few GREAT military commanders. Now a Brigadier General
disavowed101 3 months ago
the forgotten war
soCAliful1 3 months ago
Comment removed
QBisbest 3 months ago
Hey comon this isn't in 1991 this was in 1990.
mustangsdiehard1fan 3 months ago
dear santa....
Balint2424242 3 months ago
But remember the price too, M1 ABRAMS costs like 6 million when T-72 costs like 2 million.
Tervaification 3 months ago
@Tervaification But if you destroy 100 T-72s for the every Abrams they suddenly aren't such a bargain. Abrams gun had the range. In open desert they would slap in reverse to stay out of enemy range and pick off the T-72s at leisure. Russia designed their tank thinking of the export market. They sold thousands. After the war they couldn't give them away. The factory was reduced to building them without turrets and putting a bulldozer blade on the front for road construction.
goodtimebob 3 months ago
@Tervaification: The T-72 costs about 1,4 Million, and they were cheap Monkey Models, the M1A2 costs 6,2 Million $, but there were 3000 (!!!) M1 & M1A1 Tanks in the Gulf War, it isn't cheap, especially the maintenance!
TankNutJohn89 3 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 I will hate the americans and their goverment because they greedy bastards always trying to destroy and keep war against small countries with oil, or trying to bring democracy to communist countries like vietname,but these people never want democracy,so they killed thousands of thousand to kill communism cause americans are afraid of all friendly and freedom and non conflict ideas like communism.Thats why the whole world hates americans is fucking war loving country
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet: You're hating 3 Million people because about 20.000 are making mistakes? Without the US there would be no Russia, no Germany, Libya would be still under Qaddafis Dikatorship & much more. Russia fought the Taliban in the 80' we're still do, since we are doing this, there is more safety in Afghanistan. Why the Hell i should like people who hate me & my country?
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 Afghanistan and IRaq is more destroyed after americans go to this countries,Iraq and Afghanistan were more safty before wars than now.If you have nothing learned from WW2, Russians pushed germans back before you even joined the World War, not Americans won the WW2 the Russians done, they was first in Berlin they cleared the East Berlin first before you even got close enough to Center,Russians have the burned bones of Hitler not you.Russia won WW2.USA sucks at all.
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet Yea, we suck yet WE'RE the most powerful country in the world and always have been. We wanted to and ALMOST swept through Russia and took it over, but Patton couldn't get permission. Grow the fuck up, and look past all the propaganda that is blown into the air by so many people. Grow the fuck up and realize that WE the PEOPLE of the U.S.A. have no control over our government anymore. Our GOVERNMENT sucks, not us.
colorblindvids 2 months ago
@colorblindvids The most powerful country in the world?Dont make me laugh, so tell me what makes you to the most powerful country on earth?Maybe you dont notice your problems in your country, your goverment sucks to keep up your economy you always keep wars with small 3rd world countries with oil, you always was and be afraid of freedom,life living and souveran ideas like communism,you bastards let the world think communism is the pure evil direct from hell,your military is weak.
Talshet 2 months ago
@colorblindvids Your military is just a joke.You have about the half number of Tanks as russia and about 40% smaller than China.You pricks always underrate russian technologies,you always ignore real facts,russian technology destroyed and showed the superioty of your unrelaible and ineffective weapons.Vietname your own soldiers prefered AK47 cause M16 is piece of shit unrelaible always jamming and less lethal had almost no infect of oppenent with hit result.
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet You are joking right? Seriously. Who cares how many tanks Russia has. Today's tehnology is no longer about numbers, but about technology itself. Run 1000 tanks thru a desert, all will be gone within hours from air support. Jets from the air wont even have to get close to the tanks. Take em out from the air. AK47 are good, but M16s are now the future, specially in desert and open areas. Close combat, yeah AK47 could win.
Cornelp1 2 months ago
@Cornelp1 Wars are always about numbers.All kind of Wars without asymetric (urban,guerilla) warfare showed that quantity always overweight quality.And maybe you are one of this people who is not informed well.AK47 was produced about 5 billion times,its passed the AK74 was produced about 3 billion times.Dont think they all got only the AK47 with less accuracy than M16,the AK74 has 3-4cm better accuracy on 100 meter targets than M16A2.Russians left about 20 million weapons in Afghanistan
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet the AK was only been amde 140 million times ONE BILLION is already WAY too much
alekzander2010 2 months ago
@alekzander2010 The AK47 was built 5 billion times during cold war google it you will find old articles about it, AK74 2-3 billion times produced,HK G3 was 600 million times produced each 3rd weapon is an G3 in africa.Trust me or make researches people are crazy when it goes around weapons.Michael Kalaschnikov could be the richest man on earth about 3 times richer than Bill Gates.But other times other mentality, he is a legend and his name will survive longer than any can imagine
Talshet 1 month ago
@Talshet hmmm intersting but
kalashnikov aint rich
most AK´s are produced without permission of the russian goverment
the russians lost over 20Billion+ With thease Ilegal AK´s
alekzander2010 1 month ago
@Talshet war isn't always about number during the yom kippur war (1973) israeli tanks were outnumber to syrian tanks seven to one and israelis won,
StarTrekFanEst 2 months ago
@Talshet you are a moron, the us armed forces have over 1.4 million active troops, the russians about 300,000 poorly trained conscripts, we have over 7,000 tanks the russian have 6000 active tanks, not to mention that the russian army officers are the most corrupt in the world, again your facts are just wrong, our men loved the m16a1 in vietnam, the ak47 is old thats why not even the russian use it anymore
packr72 5 days ago
@colorblindvids Remember Iraq war were even 50 years old RPG7 with the most useless Warheads of 330mm RHA destroyed lot of M1 Abrams,the abrams armor is effective only at turret front but the pan is weaker than old T72 (1080mm RHA) M1 pan (860mm RHA).And remember your so overrated FIM92 Stingers its unrelaible and absolutly ineffective,in 10 years only 72 Mi24 were destroyed, and only 20-40 through stinger, the rest was taken down with big calibre weapons like .50 cal,14,5,23mm.
Talshet 2 months ago
@colorblindvids Remember WW2 were you was fucked from 4 times smaller tank division army of Germans.One of there Tigers achieved more than 200 destroyed Sherman,Churchill Tanks,but our T34/85 showed superior technology.Russians cleared first there east side of Berlin and they got the burned bones of Hitler,they plant the first Flag in Berlin not you,the Soviets won the WW2 not america.You have been only the half of the war in Europe.
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet Remember the cold war,ingeneer and scientists achievments,Soviets were always the guys with better technology.T34/85,T43,T54/55 the first 100mm Smooth bore canon wich was about twice powerfull than any else.T64 the first tank with composite armor it was the best of his time it cant be destroyed through any existing tank.T72 is untill now one of the most succesfull tanks on earth,fires 1km farther than M1,the modernized T72UB are about the same quality as T90 12k tanks exist.
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet The past is the past. This is the NOW. What matters now is, THE NOW. We cant forget the past, but we dont fight with the weapons of the past, so who cares what went on in the past. Its a matter of what we have NOW.
Cornelp1 2 months ago
@Talshet range on the gun isnt everything, espically since russian made optics and stablizers are inferior compared to nato systems, besides tank launched atgms were pioneered by the us in the m55 sheridan, their not as effective as ap rounds, they are slow, and leave the tank extremely vulnerable to attack, the t90 rha vs he may be around 1080mm vs he, but the abrams vs he is about 1300mm, the abrams has about 900 rha vs ke while the t90 is around 780 to 800 mm rha
packr72 5 days ago
@Talshet I remember when our infantry CRUSHED the Germans, and was poised to crush you. The only reason you could make it to Berlin was because the ALLIES had them stretched so thin.
colorblindvids 2 months ago
@colorblindvids If you're going to use historical facts to argue against someone, I suggest you get them right. History actually says the only reason the Allies could get to Germany is because the Soviets stretched them so thing. around 70% of the Germany military was on the eastern front
ThatAdelaideGuy 2 months ago
@ThatAdelaideGuy Oh yea, I forgot man. I forgot that we liberated half of Europe and eliminated their chances of mass French conscription. AND kicked their ass in North Africa.
colorblindvids 2 months ago
@ThatAdelaideGuy Oh? And what happened in Italy, I forgot?
colorblindvids 2 months ago
@colorblindvids Your information are not correct the Wehrmacht concentrated about 2/3 of their military resources on eastern front,Hitler always feared russians,after 43 as Soviets started to push Germans fast back he decided to increase the number of his tanks and infantry on eastern front, russians had more opponent forces to defeat than you.SU won the WW2.
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet We were mostly focused on Japan, since they started shit with us. Japanese weapons and armor were shit. So was Italian.
GooRooGo 1 month ago
@Talshet a NOOO get your facts straight, on the eastern front the tigers and panthers dominated t34s and j2s, in france and italy, soviet numbers won the day, the t34/85 was not a technologically advanced tank, it had sloped armor, a diesel engine and a decent gun, that's it, the sherman at least had good optics. the germans laughted at the t34 and how basic it was and russian training was pitiful, oh and after ww2 the sherman outperformed the t34 in korea and the middle east, even the t55
packr72 5 days ago
@Talshet: What? Taliban, Al-Qaida & other Terrorists destroyed their Country, Iraq's Civilians would be still killed by Saddam if he done nothing against him. In Afghanistan 60 people died by terrorists before our intervention, now its under 20, its more safe. We had still sent Russia Weapons & more, Russia won with 13 million casualties? We fought Japan AND Germany & had 220k losses. Both won the War. Even Italy won.
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
@Talshet While Middle East is true, not so much for the Russians/USA. Russians were worse then Germans. They killed more people than anyone really knows. Every country between Russian and Germany, Russians destroyed, murdered people, raped women and killed children. So please, dont speak to highly of Russians. Thanks.
Cornelp1 2 months ago
Oh yea! Had to get that oil!
xMasterJuiceX 4 months ago
Well, of course, the M1's will eat the T-72's for breakfast. The M1's armor design. Is to absorb the enemy shell. Causing very little damage. Plus with all it's features and gadgets. Those. T-72's dug their own graves. But no tank is Invincible. It ake a hell of alotta fire. To even try to take out an Abrams.
ProudFinn1 4 months ago
3 gulf wars
gho2t9933 4 months ago
Only 3 to 1 odds..
yourcomingoffstupid 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ 3:01 fat guy?
Yahooblue42 4 months ago
Comment removed
Yahooblue42 4 months ago
they suprize nothing
Cableethernet33000 4 months ago
my dad's tank was behind cpt. McMasters!!!!!!
12maximas 4 months ago
A big reason the Coaliton won wasnt just because they didnt have great tech. but most of them where consprits and didnt wont to fight,sad they had to die
themoocrew1 5 months ago
Why did the even compare the T-72 to the Abrams? The Iraqis had the stripped out version that was awful.
Devshat112 5 months ago
Hey, I am thinking about joining the army and become part of a m1 tank crew, what do I need to know if I am to do this?
Thomahawk5000 5 months ago
@Thomahawk5000 You aren't suppose to know anything...that's why they teach you. I want to be an M1 crewman as well but in the Marines which means I probably won't even get into armor. But the Army trains both Marines and the Army with tanks.
xCh34pShOtx 5 months ago
@xCh34pShOtx well i heard that you need to score a 90 on the asvab to get into a tank crew and i want to know what i need to do
Thomahawk5000 4 months ago
@Thomahawk5000 Btw just so you know there's hardly any Abrams tanks in Afghanistan and we're out of Iraq soon so I'm guessing your chances of getting into armor might be slim. Not sure though, might get lucky. I know because I wanted to be a tanker and that's what my recruiter tells me.
xCh34pShOtx 4 months ago
Interesting
sayhi2jon 5 months ago
Elite and muslime are oxymorons
cunnyall 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SuperNaturalJump2012, YouTube, Over 5 foot vertical! My Head by a 12&1/2 foot ceiling! Super Vertical Elevation! SupremeVerticalJump,YouTube Everyone was amazed at the incredible leaping ability and agility!UltraVerticalJump,YouTube, 4 feet vertical! Really soon I'll be eye level with the rim! SuperVerticalJump,YouTube,Amazing!4 feet vertical elevation, my head almost touches the Rim & By itself the video cam is magically following the incredible vertical movements!"
seros2010 5 months ago
my unkel was in 101
lepricoun 6 months ago
My great uncle fought there.
Cwervy 6 months ago
can ptrd penetrate. hah obviously not
halo56822 6 months ago
In my humblest opinion, I think those tanks were not T-72s. Type 69-QM2 tanks based on an even earlier Soviet Tank, the T-55.
EllyMcCormack 6 months ago
доказательство варварства, разорения и уничтожения!
MrMiroslavius 6 months ago
Comment removed
statisch 6 months ago
Why is there still a guy in the last T-72 in the last frame?
statisch 6 months ago
Good tank, shame you americans gotta sell'em to china for having a huge debt hahahahah
oblivionps3fan 6 months ago
@oblivionps3fan If the chinese cant drive a car what makes you think they can drive a beast like that... so we have nothing to worry about if we ever go to war... im american and i approve this message :)
TheMrblake1314 6 months ago
either way it was great work on our troops part
jorgev651 7 months ago
Notice how the they overstate the T-72 and the enemy awesomeness to boast their own greatness? It's damn T-72; what chance does it have against a computerized Abrams beast?
DemocraticOrder 7 months ago 23
@DemocraticOrder A modernized t-72 is just as good as an M1 abrams. The Iraqi's just didn't have modernized tanks. And most of their tanks were t-55s or t-62s anyway.
KaiserReich98 6 months ago
@KaiserReich98 Do not give the same speech about Monkey Models. A modernized T-72 is still not as good as an Abrams. The T-90 is very comparable but a T-72? That is bullshit. Explain to me how an Abrams fired a DU round through the turret of an Iraqi T-72 and it penetrated out the other side and knocked out another T-72. Or how an Abrams destroyed 3 Iraqi T-72 tanks in 10 seconds. An upgraded T-72 does not have shit on an Abrams.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@franknbeans4761 The t-90 IS a modernized t-72. And I never said the t-72 was comparable to the M1a2, I said it was compareable to the M1. You see theres a big differance between fighting Iraqi t-72s and Russian ones.
M1 = T-72B
M1a1 = T80U
M1a2 = T-90/T-84 Oplot
KaiserReich98 6 months ago
@KaiserReich98 Oh gotcha, I misunderstood that then. Too many people just use M1 and are not specific enough.
But I agree with what you said then. However you cannot fully upgrade a T-72 into a T-90. It required a different chassis and other different components so you cannot exactly upgrade a T-72 to a T-90.
franknbeans4761 6 months ago
@DemocraticOrder It depends on the crew I think.
Detspokar 5 months ago in playlist Fler videoklipp från ColdWarWarriors
@DemocraticOrder Это точно! Да Т90 такая же развалина! как и Т72, только сделано для продажи.. .
SpaceEnterprise 5 months ago
@DemocraticOrder true. if anything. the iraqis had some balls to even try to fight against nato forces.
gethsoftware 5 months ago
@DemocraticOrder The T-72 was designed to combat the M-60 and the early M1, that is what it ran into and that is what it lost out badly to (The T-72 was marketed as being a match for the early Merkava as well).
aarontsmall1975 5 months ago
@DemocraticOrder They had no chance. But, they're the dumbasses that invaded Kuwait.
screenwriter44 4 months ago
@DemocraticOrder Have you ever trained your whole career to fight Soviet steel then stare down the barrel of a T-72, not really knowing what to expect? Not to mention having a shit load of bradleys to protect. When a little rattler surprises you and is trying to bite you, it looks like a 5 foot monster until you kill it. Hind site is 20/20. Easy to be negative when it wasn't your ass and your friends asses on the line.
Rottencloud 4 months ago
@Rottencloud Sorry if I offense you, I don't mean any disrespect to the tankers out there. What I mean is clearly those Abrams commanders are boasting. Don't you think so?
DemocraticOrder 4 months ago
@DemocraticOrder FOOL
CALLOFTHEDEAD255 3 months ago
@DemocraticOrder the T-72 (and T-64, T-80) were supposed to fight against abrams tanks in european theatre of war. T-72 was main battle tank of Warsaw Pact forces. so whats your point?
Archivvve 4 months ago
@Archivvve Meant to, not capable to. The T-72 is a great tank. But the M1 is a greater one.
NolanBrooks22694 4 months ago
@NolanBrooks22694
In comparison, ... M1 is much cheaper!
Nichtsistwieesschein 3 months ago
@DemocraticOrder: Well.. the T-72 isn't a bad Tank, and the Abrams is overrated sometimes, they weren't High-Tech as in 2011. It depends on the Crew, and even a T-72 can take out a Abrams.
TankNutJohn89 3 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 well a T-72 has yet to take out a Abrams....infact no tank has taken out a Abrams. Even other Abrams have a hard time taking them out. Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 are very comparable and some research will say the Challenger 2 may even be better in the defense armor. I would say even a top line Russian T-72 would have a hard time taking a Abrams out frontally.
jtoatoktoe 2 months ago
@jtoatoktoe: It depends on the Crew, even a russian T-90 can't kill the M1A2 through the turret-front, in Desert Storm, M1's & M1A1's were hit by T-72's at 300m & were not killed.
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 I agree, but you can't compare Russian and Iraqi T-72's...Russian ones were much better, firing better ammunition, but in the end the result would be the same. Abrams is just a better tank all around.
jtoatoktoe 2 months ago
@jtoatoktoe: Of course you can compare them, they had the same engine & the same cannon, the ammo was outdated but even the newest russian T-72 ammo in 1991 couldn't destroy the abrams turret armor. Iraq had T-72M1, a modified Export-Variant too.
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 What a bullshit.T72s in Iraq were downgraded export versions wich are about half powerfull as russian T72, they used solid steel KE penetrators.People like you are uneducated or just want to spread myths like M1 is unbeatable.M1 was even destroyed often from PG7 rounds of 330mm RHA.The DU plates in turret are only protecting the sides were quarder is painted not more not less.The real russian AP/KE shells can destroy each modern Tank.Stop being hater of russians.
Talshet 2 months ago
@Talshet: Your downgraded export Versions are Lions of Babylon, made in Iraq, i meant the T-72M1, the modernized T-72. They used old Weapons, thats why they couldn't kill the Abrams Tanks. However, the M1 & M1A1 hadn't DU-Armor. The destroyed M1A1 HA's were "mobility-killed" by IED's & destroyed by US-Forces. The Abrams isn't unbeatable. Stop being hater of americans.
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
@Talshet No the 3BM-42 (1985) has very little chance to kill an M1A1HA (1988). A hit around the drivers hatch or a small part of the lower front hull can. Most tanks in the USSR were using older ammo like the 3BM-22/26.
I love Russian tanks and I think that a T-90 is overall a more usefull tank because it is easier to employ and has HE ammo that the Abrams lacks. However the Abrams excels in one area and that is killing other tanks while taking a beating.
EasyEs 2 months ago
@Talshet Russian T-72's and T-80's were ripped apart by RPG's in Grozny.
GooRooGo 1 month ago
@Talshet You are making up so much BS.
Eagle9294 1 month ago
Comment removed
DemocraticOrder 7 months ago
During the 1st Gulf War the Abrams owned the enemy. As it should be. Killed all those sand boogers.
CrimsonChampions 7 months ago
@CrimsonChampions Your comment dishonors and belittles the service and achievement of American troops in the Persian Gulf.
iowa61 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iowa61 shut the fuck up fucking nigger
evoldevildogs 7 months ago
@CrimsonChampions Sand niggers *
CanadaFightsToo 7 months ago
nasty
srb8522 7 months ago
does anyone know the documentary this is from?
ANAHEIM8 7 months ago
@Sharkattack48 The point though is that they don't always find the truth. One of the reasons Al Jazeera has been such a pain in the ass to the US military is that they have access to information and footage US journalists wouldn't be able to see under normal circumstances, since military escorts intentionally divert them from any sort of "inflamatory" material like civilian casualties. I'm not saying it's a broad coverup, only that you never get the full story while the war is going on...
ULTRAHITLER 7 months ago
@Sharkattack48 It's well established that US military establishment does exercise control over what the media can report. Nowadays, media cannot legally enter a warzone unless escorted by military personnel, unlike Vietnam where they just wandered around. That said, they're free to report on anything they see, but the officers in charge cherry pick both what they get to see and the information they get. There is also an incentive to report positively since future access can be denied.
ULTRAHITLER 7 months ago
@AmericanPowerBase
Sorry, but the only one with big air to brain ratio in your head is you.
brox114 7 months ago
Around 200 American deaths vs 30,000 Iraqi Deaths. It reminds me of the "Splended little war" in the late 1800's where the Americans sunk the entire Spanish Atlantic fleet with only 1 American death.
downloadgoblin 7 months ago
...pwned
NOZblast2 7 months ago
I'm astonished how western media twisted the truth and true facts in Gulf War. USA lost around 20 Abrams tanks (majority due to enemy fire, few due to friendly fire), plus more than 20 Bradley's. USA HAD CASUALTIES. It's funny how good western media is doing on fooling and brainwashing people about Usa's (NATO's) losses of manpower, tanks and aircraft. But, for example, when only one "enemy" tank was destroyed, western media spreaded this all over the world in a matter of seconds.
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114 See comment below. :)
downloadgoblin 7 months ago
@downloadgoblin
Reconstructions of combat is necessary to improve ovarall combat performance and avoid potential mistakes if they have been made. And, btw, for your info, I have served in the army as a sniper. So, WTF do I know about combat and military technology? Well, I do know quite a bit; mostly 'cause I constantly improve my knowledge about warfare and weaponry.
brox114 7 months ago
@brox114 nope your wrong only 4 abram tanks were destroyed the wrest of the 20 you said that were destroyed werent destroyed but damaged and were then soon refurbished and most of the abrams tanks were destroyed becouse apache pilots shot the abrams tanks on accident. maybe your media is a bunch of liars
goarmy979 7 months ago
@goarmy979
Around 20 were damaged (most of them beyond repair); certanly much more than 4 completely destroyed with at least one crew KIA in any of those M1's.
Western media has tendency to lie about western losses because of censorship and because of keeping willingness of Usa's (NATO's) troops to fight.
Friendly fire occured only in very few incidents. Also, usa's tankers have RULE to turn the turret 180° if tank receives a critical hit (any of survived crewman out of 4 must do this).
brox114 7 months ago