Added: 3 years ago
From: ColdWarWarriors
Views: 241,454
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (989)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Where the iraqis russian trained?

  • 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.

  • in 33 minutes !!! waw!

  • The 27 dislikes are ex-members of the Tawakalna Division, lol

  • 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.

  • @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.

  • @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.

  • 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.

  • @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 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.

  • @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

  • @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

  • @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

  • @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

  • what mean turned down V mark at the tank body? it's chevron or what?

  • real tanks are hard to aim . i prefer left clicking

  • in this battle the americans only lost 2 men and 1 tank

  • There you go, American fire power at work.... the battle proven M1 Abrams.

  • is this Battlefield 3 everyone talking about?

  • 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.

  • I am in this video...... I was there....

  • Hopefully they will meet equivalent enemy in the future with many lost of them. Later on they will use their power wisely.

  • @nrimorahardjo An understandable point of view, however, I hope we will be able to learn without suffering losses.

  • The Iraqis had the t72M, which stands for "monkey model,' which was a complete joke compared to the updated Russian t72's.

  • 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.

  • 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment rules!! TOUJOURS PRET!!

  • @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.

  • @Talshet The AK47 was not produced 5 BILLION times. The number is closer to 100 million.

  • Something about not having a British narrator makes these documentaries less legitimate...

  • Sure were brave, those republican guard units. Stood and fought repeatedly, knowing that they were outclassed.

  • Looks like martial law isn't going to be piece of cake to resist during depopulation false flag event coming up?

  • HO LY SHIT! That's truly amazing

  • jump my ass. saddams tanks couldnt do shit even if they had the chance

  • Comment removed

  • fuck those comment below me

  • 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.

  • From 3:00 onward are what used to be people...

  • 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.

  • To everybody who thinks that USA is Peace loving country i suggest to watch this:

    watch?v=8XE4eRiKrz8

  • @vormanokarol Naw we aint peace loving, wel fuck you up......

  • either them or us bf3 reference right there

  • 2:10 9 Abrams knocked out 28 Tanks, 16 APCs and 39 trucks. Dayum.

  • 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

  • I condemn yours government and bandit bankers

  • thes americans always brag but yet they dont tell the bad things about the tank like how the abrams is a gas guzzler

  • @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

  • @F5xToRefresh HAHHAHAHHAHAA no comment.

  • 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 saddam hussein.. dumbass

  • @vormanokarol

    Cite your information.

  • like your country attacked somalia,liban,panama,haiti,sud­an,iraq, afghanistan, libya etc.

  • Europe created your country don't forget about it.

  • watch?v=TFquHFH0Dxo

    It's a video about your peace loving government

  • Face it, the M1A1 is a superior design. That's why we had the drop.

  • Remove our troops and bomb the towel headed slime ball fucks.

  • H.R. McMasters... One of the very few GREAT military commanders. Now a Brigadier General

  • the forgotten war

  • Comment removed

  • Hey comon this isn't in 1991 this was in 1990.

  • dear santa....

  • But remember the price too, M1 ABRAMS costs like 6 million when T-72 costs like 2 million.

  • @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

  • @Talshet the AK was only been amde 140 million times ONE BILLION is already WAY too much

  • @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 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

  • @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,

  • @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.

  • @ThatAdelaideGuy Oh? And what happened in Italy, I forgot?

  • @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 We were mostly focused on Japan, since they started shit with us. Japanese weapons and armor were shit. So was Italian.

  • @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.

  • Oh yea! Had to get that oil!

  • 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.

  • 3 gulf wars

  • Only 3 to 1 odds..

  • Comment removed

  • they suprize nothing

  • my dad's tank was behind cpt. McMasters!!!!!!

  • 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

  • Why did the even compare the T-72 to the Abrams? The Iraqis had the stripped out version that was awful.

  • 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 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 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 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.

  • Interesting

  • Elite and muslime are oxymorons

  • my unkel was in 101

  • My great uncle fought there.

  • can ptrd penetrate. hah obviously not

  • 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.

  • доказательство варварства, разорения и уничтожения!

  • Why is there still a guy in the last T-72 in the last frame?

  • Good tank, shame you americans gotta sell'em to china for having a huge debt hahahahah

  • @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 :)

  • either way it was great work on our troops part

  • 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.

    M1 = T-72B

    M1a1 = T80U

    M1a2 = T-90/T-84 Oplot

  • @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 It depends on the crew I think.

  • @DemocraticOrder Это точно! Да Т90 такая же развалина! как и Т72, только сделано для продажи.. .

  • @DemocraticOrder true. if anything. the iraqis had some balls to even try to fight against nato forces.

  • @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 They had no chance. But, they're the dumbasses that invaded Kuwait.

  • @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  FOOL

  • @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 Meant to, not capable to. The T-72 is a great tank. But the M1 is a greater one.

  • @NolanBrooks22694

    In comparison, ... M1 is much cheaper!

  • @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.

  • @Talshet Russian T-72's and T-80's were ripped apart by RPG's in Grozny.

  • @Talshet You are making up so much BS.

  • Comment removed

  • During the 1st Gulf War the Abrams owned the enemy. As it should be. Killed all those sand boogers.

  • @CrimsonChampions Your comment dishonors and belittles the service and achievement of American troops in the Persian Gulf.

  • @CrimsonChampions Sand niggers *

  • nasty

  • does anyone know the documentary this is from?

  • @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.

  • @AmericanPowerBase

    Sorry, but the only one with big air to brain ratio in your head is you.

  • 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.

  • ...pwned

  • 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 See comment below. :)

  • @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 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

    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).