Little Americunts always think they are the best in all.Fucked in the Head by TV and still thinking they are good at Wars but never win 1 War since 1945.Big Militarymachine but just stupid flatheads who use it.
can`t u faggots just accept that the leopard is better than the abrahams??? i mean u americans have 77 trillion$- and the only thing that works in ur country is the army, and even ur army sucks dicks cuz u are loosing against a country where some damn kids with rusty ak's fuck ur highly trained soldiers.... duude these people live in clay houses, they have nothing and u took everything!!!! first get ur hobo people off the street and give'em a good accommodation before u spend money on war
06132980 your comment makes no sense in English. My point was simply that someone else said German tech is the best in the world. I pointed out that in fact that much of what goes is not a Leopard is not really German tech. In any case it is about time German(s) got over their superiority complex. Other countries produce just as advanced tech as the Germans.
PSA group (Citroen & Renault/Nissan) is a global, no longer a national one. BMW national, Nissan / Peurgot Citroen Global.
I can elaborate. 23 have been deployed in Afghan. Four were hit by IED's. Three were damaged and had to be taken back to be repaired and one crewman (sadly) was killed. None has received artiliery hits or engaged any other vehicles. They are being used to support troops. This is not to denigrate the Canadians or Danes but it simply highlights my point about the Leopard being unproven.
@TomatenMark95: The Abrams uses a modified "L/44" called M256, which is made by Watervliet Arsenal in the US. The Rheinmetall L/55 is longer, therefore the Ammo does have a higher muzzle velocity. However, the Abrams uses superior Ammo.
until so0me actually uses a Leopard in a war and fire the gun at another tank, which no one has dared to do yet, then as I said it remains the worlds best F1 car that has never been in a race.
doesn't this speaks for itself? 1. it is easier to purchse weapons from a more non aligned country. 2. If it was cheaper than the Abrams and th Challenger then of course you would. For example the ones being "sold" to Saudi are second hand. The ones Canada now has are "on loan". So no not really.
German technology? Developed by: Torsion Bar suspension (FR), sloping armour (US &FR), tanks (UK), gyro sights (UK), SABOT ammo (FR), smooth bore canon (USSR), Ceramic armour (UK), dielse engines (DE) and on.....be careful about the nationalism there. The Leopard has seen active service against 2 IED's. So to say the Abrahms is shit is inaccurate. What happened to the Leopard in Kosovo (Canada) and Afghan (Canada and Denmak)?
@smilo996 maybe . we don´t know which tank is better. but the leopard is used in more western stats(chile, denmark, finland, greece, canada, netherland, norway, austria, switzerland, portugal, sweden and spain) than the challenger and abrams. also turkey and singapore got some of them. saudi arabia and qatar wanted some. doesn't this speaks for itself?
@stalliman: These Counties can't develop their own Tanks, so they'll buy Leopard II's. But how many? There are about 4x more Abrams Tanks manufactured as Leopard II's. Also these Countries bought the Leopard II because it doesn't need as much fuel as the Abrams. Otherwise Sweden would have bought them! The US could buy the Leopard II too, but they doesn't need it. Btw: Forecast International ranks the M1A2 SEP as Worlds best Battletank.
@TankNutJohn89 its always the same. americans can't accept that there are better things than theirs. ok your abrams where is its canon from ? germany. whats a tank without a canon ? a big metal block but not a tank.
they can't develop their own tanks but why buy those countries the leopard 2 and not the m1 abrmas? because they had tested both tanks and found that the leopard is better. also during WWII the german tanks where the best.
@stalliman The Cannon is made by Watervliet Arsenal in the United States. We have developed the XM360 which is far superior to the Rh 120 & 140mm. It will be used in the next Abrams-Variant. Our Abrams does have the superior Ammo, better FCS, thicker Turret-Front, better acceleration, and more. These Countries won't buy the M1 because we don't export our newest Tank-Variant. Just without advanced Electronic & DU-Armor, as i said Sweden bought Leo II because of less fuel consumption.
@stalliman: The german Tanks in WW2 were the best? Tiger, Panther & King Tiger doesn't had a great mobility in Russia, too much weight, weak engine. There needs to be a mix between Quality & Quantity, German Tanks were good, but too expensive, 500 Panther can't fight against 3000 T-34/Sherman at the same time. Today 500 Leopard wouldn't win against 3000 Abrams with top-notch crew.
@TankNutJohn89 yes in the next m1 but we dont live in the future. one us soldier , a tank commander of an m1a2 said once after he tested the leopard 2a6 that the leopard is much better than their abrams.
also the engine of the m1 is very bad in desert. did you ever hear an m1? it's like whimpering, whistling. ever heard a leopard 2? that sounds much better and even if only the engine is on the whole building is shivering.
@stalliman: Of course, because this Tank Commander have tested both in Combat, huh? The M1 does have better Firepower, better acceleration, better frontal armor, is cheaper, and does have the better electronics & fire-control system. You asked me, if i've heard an Abrams before? I lived at the Daley Barracks in Bad Kissingen, Germany. There were many Abrams. Abrams bad in Desert? 90% of the 3000 Abrams at Desert Storm were Combat Ready. The Abrams isn't unquietly as the Leopard II.
@TankNutJohn89 Mind explaining how the abrams has better firepower if A0-A5 have exactly the same gun and A6 has a newer version?Just asking,im not a tank expert or anything,but i would like to know how that is supposed to work...
@f14tomcatfreak: The Leopard II uses DM53 & DM63 Wolframcarbide ( Tungsten ) Ammo, with a 650mm long penetrator dart. The Abrams uses M829A3 depleted Uranium Ammo, which penetrates about 10% more RHA at the same muzzle velocity, because its high density. Also the M829A3's penetrators length is 780mm. According to the german Bundeswehr the DM53 can penetrate 810mm RHA at 2km. According to the US the M829A3 can destroy the frontal turret armor of every known Tank.
@f14tomcatfreak: The Abrams does have the more accturate Laser-Rangefinder, and the more modern FCS. At Night the Leopard II uses the WBG Night Vision, it needs to cool up 15 minutes before start. The Leopard II can't fight in a rainy night, the only you can see is green mud. The M1A2 uses 3rd Generation FLIR. The M1A2 was made in 1992, the Leopard 2A5 in 1995. The TUSK had features like mine protection ( A6M ) and remote Weapon Station ( A7+ ) before.
@f14tomcatfreak: The Leopard II can attack targets at 8km, with israeli 120mm LAHAT Anti Tank Guided Missile, the M1A2 can attack enemy Tanks 12km & more with MRM-CE. In 1987 the Abrams performed better as Leopard II and Challenger Tanks in Canadian Army Trophy, also Forecast International ranks the M1A2 SEP as best Battletank in the World. The M1A3 will use M829A4 Ammo with XM360 Electrothermal-chemical Gun. The Abrams is also less expensive and can be made in high numbers. WW2?
@f14tomcatfreak: Also the M1A2 don't use exactly the same Gun, the M256 is made by Watervliet Arsenal in the US, and is based on German Rheinmetall L/44 with slightly different changes.
@TankNutJohn89 I looked up the guns...almost identical,exept the Leopard uses a hydraulic recoil sytem and the Abrams a Spring system,exept the L55 which is longer in order to archieve higher muzzle velocity and more range and penetration...Also I´ve read that the Leopard 2 is apparently not only easy to maintenance,but also easy to upgrade,especially the armor and electronics.Also,i have a question...What if you load the M829 into a L/55?
@f14tomcatfreak: The Leopard II needs Upgrades, even 2A4 isn't state of the art anymore. The Abrams also is easy to upgrade, but this will increase the weight up to over 70t. The M829 is designed for L/44, higher charge, longer penetrator. I don't know, nobody tried this so far. In fact, the longer Cannon is the Leopard II's only advantage. Without L/55 ( A5 and less ) the Leopard II can't destroy enemy Tanks in the front, especially russian t-series with modern reactive armor.
@TankNutJohn89 Who knows if it even will be used in a few years...i wonder what its successor will be,though,i suspect it will be somewhat based on the NGP project like the Puma
@TankNutJohn89 the m1a1 is still expected to remain in service in 2021 and the m1a2 will beyond the year 2050. till the new m1 get in service it will take a while.
@stalliman: The M1A2 is in Service since 1992, in this time the Germans still had Leopard 2A4. The M1E3 Abrams Evolutionary Design is nearly finished. With MRM-CE ( XM1111 ) the M1A3 could attack enemy Tanks at 12km and more.
@TankNutJohn89 The panthers were not overly complicated to produce. Buzt daily bombing raids hampered the production. neither americans nor russians had such problems and thus could produce their stuff at max speed.
If the german manufactoring plants would have been inefficient the allies would not have stolen and used them up to the 1970's
@smiilo996: You know jack SHIT about the Leopard 2A6/A7!! The whole tank is made in Germany by Kraus Maffei Wegman in Munich. The smoothbored gun is made by Rheinmetall in Munich and is the SAME gun as on the Abrahams, namely the Rheinmetall L55 gun. Kraus Maffei also makes the armour, consisting from composit material, including tungsten. The engine is made by MTU in Germany.
In short: I have never seen someone written so much bullshit about a tank!!
@smilo996 so ur saying just because the idea the design and the assembly were german it is not german?.. so every movie who uses special effects made in another country or plays in another country or has artists from another country IS from another country? if i bake an unsual shaped bread with an excelent unusual taste made from various components in an epic mix, but i use use salt and water from france .. its not a bread made by me anymore.. its a bread from france? fuck off
@smilo996 as an example many cars made from nissan (japan) are using renault engines (france) like nearly every car has components from other countrys.. or they get their metal components from other countrys still u would say (for example) a renault is france even if hes using parts from japan or whatever.. citroen developer of the Torsion bar suspension used in the same car german parts... so is citroen still france? in ur logic NO and so ur whole logic fails in core points...
@smilo996 Everything you just said is too generalized to be valid. The US isn't using it's own tech then either, and everything you just said can be applied to most nations. History shows the Germans make the best tanks, and the Abrams hardly has a track record, seeing as we have yet to fight a real military. Cheaper, more armor, more maneuverable, better gun, and best of all, the tracks don't slip off when you're driving sideways on a hill. Look into it, it happens.
stalliman. I think it is fair to say that the Challenger and Abrams have been severely tested against tanks, though not the T90 yet, anti tank weapons, mines, RPG's. The Leopard has encountered 2 small IED's. So interns of the realities of usage and the conditions of usage the Leopard remains good on paper.
no one knows in reality how good or poorly the Leaopard performs because it has not really been tested in prolonged combat unlike the Challenger and the Abrahms. Both have performed well. The Challenger with the longest tank kill recorded and defensive resistance. The Abrams in prolonged combat situations and the ability for it to be completely stripped and rebuilt for example.
@smilo996 no the leopard was in kosovo and is also in afghanistan. but they never fought against another tank. the challanger and abrams also never fought against a tank on their level. they only fought against some T72 and T54 during the the wars in iraq.
@stalliman They are all 3 outstanding MBT's. The armor and firepower differences are minute. I'm just glad they are all on the same side!!! Nothing from the east would last very long against them. I do wish the Abrams would go to a diesel engine just for efficiency sake but that gas turbine is a monster engine.
gayrman military = F-4 (obsolete American junk), Eurofarter (Based on 1980's British EAP aircraft), Tornado junk ( British, Italian and gayrman coproduction) , Tiger (French design), Global Hawk (American), Heron (Israeli), UH-1(American), CH-53(American)...the only indigenous gayrman junk is Leofart II :) It has been tested against Taliban armed with AK-47s so far LOL
At 2:41 I actually had trouble focusing my eyes on the tank itself, the left part of the tank and the left part of the turret completely blended in with the environment. SICK camouflage pattern.
I have a question: Why do most tanks put more emphasis on protection from the front ? I mean, the thickest part of the armor is often in the front, and in particular the Merkava have its engine in front of the crew.
Because the front is most likely to face the enemy.
If they should have the same armor all over, it would also mean a significant weight increase, which is not good for the overall performance of a tank.
Because: if the tank is looking straight at you witth the hull and turret, its width is only 3 to 4 meters, the side is allot longer with 7 to 9 meters. Tanks will position themself in danger so that the front is facing the enemy, making them in the prosses difficulter to hit, and if the enemy does hit, the frontal armor is allot thicker of course. Usually the front is the thickest, sides the second best protected and the rear and top the least.
@hurstolds841 While I agree that quality is a VERY important factor, I must also admit that mass production capabilities are what wins a war, and only a few countries can mass produce tanks as fine as Germany's.
I'm glad that Germany is on the USA side. Those Russian T-90s will get obliterated by the Leo2 series before they even have a chance to face the M1Abrams.
@DasIllu no its not to kill civilians. its called leopard PSO and PSO stands for Peace support operation and it has features to communicate with peophle outside without any threat for the crew and so on
@altratronic not realy, infantry antitank-missle like javelin has only a range of 2km... and a tank have better vision optics than a infantryman.
and when u fight against a well equiped country with good anti-air u must go back to the roots and call your tanks. infantry cant push/move so fast like an tank/mech.infantry amry... that means u are an easy target for arty with a slow only infanrty army. look back to the yom kippur war, tanks played the largest role... despite antitankmissle's!
@altratronic Most hand held anti-tank missiles and rockets can penetrate only 600-900ish mm of armor. Whilst most MBT's have over a 1000mm. The Leopard2A5 has about 1800mm of CE protection on it's turret for example.
@Waldhuette33 7. panzer division, aka ghost division, was led by Rommel in France campain in summer -40. "the 7th Panzer Division earned the name of the Ghost Division because its rapid movements led to few knowing exactly where the Divisig the German Hon was, includinigh Command. "
@Khristophoros1001 Leo2A6 RHAe vs 100mm APfSDS: ~350mm. Basically nothing but a backing plate & those sloped penetration-disrupting modules, which are like 15mm thick. Perforated armor is very heavily optimized to a single caliber projectile. Meanwhile, DU mesh laid with ceramics + stock chobham, heavy layered ceramics, silica, or extremely well-sloped composite modules, reactive armor, etc., all have uniform protection versus a wide array of calibers.
@Khristophoros1001 They never will be, because if Germany invades France again, we're just gonna let 'em. The French are ungrateful as shit.
Though perforated armor is shit against sub-optimum threats (threats it's not designed specifically to resist). It's great against HEAT, but a change in penetrator will defeat it. We experimented with using it on early M1s before M1A1, but decided against it.
ofc, perf. steel is much cheaper and lighter than DU-reinforced chobham.
@usafpilot29 Your a fool. And your anti-American bigotry is just astounding. All the experts in the world who know what they're talking about place the M1A2 above any othe MBT operating in the world today. Your ignorance and America bashing won't change that fact.
@0Heavy0Metal0 Oh wow I am a fool. Your biased statement shows how ridiculous American arrogance can be. German units are more effective. Your American shit tanks are moving target practice for the Leopard.
Does anyone know which armor rates better, the Leopard 2A7+ or the M1 Abrams tank? Don't get me wrong, they're both massive machines capable of far greater damage than most could imagine.
@thecrowandthehawk both armors are good. i dont think that there is a big difference between both armors. but the us military dont make all about the m1a2 public. so we dont know exactly which armor is better. but i and many other guys think that the armor of the leooard 2a6 is good as the armor of the m1a2. but to get a right answer you should tell that question some generals of the us army and german army. and when you compare both answers you would have answered your question.
@stalliman Ha, it's funny they make it classified, because it would seem very easy to obtain. All the enemy would have to do is destroy an Abrams tank and crack it open. Though, I guarantee that the Leopard 2A7+ would stand a very good chance against an M1Abrams, both are much better than what 99% if not 100% of what other countries have mass produced. also, sind Sie ein Deutschlander?
@thecrowandthehawk yes i am german. when you say german in german you say Deutscher. not Deutschlander but Deutschlander sounds funny. when it is so easy to destroy an m1a2 and look which materials were used someone had done that already. i know that there were m1abrams destroyed but they were all brought back to the usa .
@stalliman ah, entschuldigung, mein Deutsch ist nicht so gut, aber ich kann nicht ein gutes deutsch Lehrer/ Lehrerin finden. Denn diese, ich muss English sprechen. - If you could understand any of that (my german is horrible). Also, was your third sentance supposed to be a question, because I'm at a loss for understanding. Are you implying that someone has already done that and released the information? In Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. lost 4 of the roughly 3000 tanks sent out.
@thecrowandthehawk i mean all these destroyed m1abrams were brought back to the usa . so no one could crack a tank open and see which materials were used. you also cant see which materials were used. so you have to do some chemical tests and not many people have the know how for that. you can google it and you will find some informations about the armor of the tank. the list there are not 100% right and maybe there are not all materials in the list which were used.
@maghrebi28: These were M1's & M1A1's, the M1A1 does have 400mm RHA, the M1A1 HA+ with Depleted Uranium does have about 800mm RHA, the M1A2 about 900mm & the SEP 960mm RHA, the TUSK with ARAT II even over 1000mm RHA [KE] like Challenger 2 or T-84M with Nosch-2. You can't compare the old Abrams with the newer ones.
@TankNutJohn89 might be possible, but the Abrams is still using the Same Rheinmetall LH55 Cannon like the Leopard2.. but without the German stabilizing ;) If i had to choose, i would always prefer the Leopard2..
@weigibabe: What? The Abrams isn't using the Rheinmetall L/55. It uses the Watervliet M256, which is basically the same as the Rheinmetall L/44. We don't need the german stabilization, we have our own. We had the same WBG as the Leopard 2A6, now we have FLIR 3rd Gen. We had Carl Zeiss LRF of Leopard 2A6, now it's improved by Raytheon.
@TankNutJohn89 OK, My fault.. but still based on a German Design ;) like some of the other Components.. but anyway, for me (and not only based on my German point of view) the Leopard is the better Tank.. there must be a reason why so many Countries bought the Leopard instead of the Abrams.. Last one is Saudi-Arabia i think.. must be a little Problem with the Turbine in Deserts ;)
@weigibabe: German Design, however. The Gun is made in the US with american Steel. Forecast International ranks the M1A2 SEP as Worlds best Battletank. The Leopard 2A6 is fourth. Well... because the lack of uranium ammo & costs of the Gas-Turbine. There are about 500 Leopard 2A6's. We had 3000 Abrams in Iraq, and we had little problems with the Gas-Turbine & the logistics.
@TankNutJohn89 little problems?? a new turbine every 500 miles?? this isn't a little Problem.. and the Fuelconsumption is.. hmm.. American... not what i call efficient. and Uranium? thats the reason why Iraq is now contaminated with radioactive dust..and by the way.. the L55 is way better like every derivate of the L44 Cannon.. and Jane's Defence Weekly listed the Leopard2A6m at no.1 of the best tanks. it's the best tank you can have for your money..
@weigibabe: We have enough Gas-Turbines, 90% of our Abrams were ready for Combat permanently. When Tactical-Idle Mode is selected it doesn't drink so much as you think, and the M1 does have the greatest accleration of a Battletank. The L/55 is better than L/44, but the M829A3 is also far better than DM63. The M1A2 TUSK does have mine-protection unlike Leopard 2A6, the M1A2 SEP does have better electronics & systems that will be in use in Leopard 2A7. Both are great Tanks.
@TankNutJohn89 you may have enough Gasturbines, but if you have to change it every 300-500 kilometers it's not really a useful engine.. and Mine-protection? think about what the "m" in Leopard A6M is for.. exactly, improved mineProtection ;) and the DM63 got a initial velocity of ~1750 m/sec instead of 1555 m/sec with the M829A3, OK its not that heavy but it also does not contains radioactive Materials. ask your troops, many of them falls ill after breathing the Dust..
@weigibabe: I have mentioned of the Leopard 2A6, not the A6M, as you know the M1A2 is made in 1992, the Leopard 2A5 in 1995. The TUSK had Mine-Protection before Leopard 2A6M & the remote control LMG before Leopard 2A7. The M1 Abrams does also have the better FCS, Optics & Laser-Rangefinder. Velocity is that high because of the L/55 Gun, even the M829, M829A1 & M829A2 had a higher velocity than the M829A3. But wait about the M829A4 with the electrothermical-chemical M360A1. 12km Range
@TankNutJohn89 yeah, and thats why the leopard is winning the deals XD there must be a reason why 19 Countries had chosen the Leopard and only 6 the Abrams?? last one was Saudi Arabia with > 200 Tanks ordered.. one reason for this deal was the Turbine of the Abrams that needs much more maintenance like the good ol' V10 in the Leopard.. and this machine does not care about the Fuel you use. it runs with flour if you want it.. not with 1500hp but it runs ;)
@weigibabe: However, Sweden have tested them, they would have bought the Abrams, but they have chosen the Leopard 2, which has 2 reasons, lower fuel consumption, and less heat. Greece now get's M1A1 Abrams, but they have already Leopard 2A4 & A6's. Saudi Arabia probably collects Tanks, they have bought T-90, Abrams & Leopard Tanks... and tested the Challenger 2. Crazy, isn't it?
@TankNutJohn89 oh i forgot.. Saudi Arabia is using the Abrams because we dont want to deliver leopards to this Country in the past.. but it looks like we are doing it now ;)
thats why we are using tungsten to make the penetrators. Much harder, nearly the weight of depleted Uranium but without the massive effects of contaminating the Environment. The US-Troops in Kosovo fired a lot of this Ammunition with the A10 and what happens some time later? a lot of malformed Babies where born there! and this is definetly unbearable! but anyway, the only way to find out which tank is the best is to see who wins the fight ;) hopefully this will never happen..
@weigibabe: Nope, Tungsten aka Wolframcarbide isn't harder than depleted Uranium. 16g/cm³ density & 19g/cm³ density. Btw, the M829A3 ( 780mm ) does have a longer penetrator than the DM63 ( 646mm ) Even if they fight you wouldn't know which Tank is better, you don't see pro's & con's, it's depending on the Crew, every Tank can be destroyed by an A-10, are all Tanks bad now?
@thecrowandthehawk During the war with Iraq, the Americans lost about 1,000 tanks Abrams (damaged, destroyed, padded). You guys blow the brains well. : D The auxiliary power unit tank M1A1 was poorly covered by armor. It could bring down heavy machine gun fire. Side armor of the tank M1A1 could be broken by fire of the old Russian anti-tank missiles (60 s of release) and RPG -7.
@Imprudentman I have no idea what "You guys blow the brains well" means, unless you're referring to "you blow my mind". Though I didn't know that, did you just find this through research or have you had some personal experience with the M1A1 Abrams?
@thecrowandthehawk You can find a lot of material about the broken tank Abrams here on YouTube. Any military interest in the fighting taking place in the world. I read a review of some Russian specialists about the combat readiness of the U.S. Army. She was found not satisfactory. There have also been analyzed in the war, which was attended by the U.S. military. Conclusions - The U.S. Army is poorly trained armed forces.
@Imprudentman I wouldn't consider Youtube a valid source, as I know for sure the only thing you hear in the U.S. is what they want you to hear. And if you want to look at the standard troops you are correct, they are kids with basic training. If you consider the best troops such as Delta, they are a force to be reckoned with, in terms of combat. Of course Delta and DEVGRU supposedly don't exist according to the U.S. officials. Supposedly we're still using SEALTEAM 6 which has been disbanded.
@thecrowandthehawk You wrote about the Delta. This team has a bad experience with Mogadishu-1993. Also, other U.S. special groups are not always lucky - I say softly. The history of United States Special Forces tragic.
@Imprudentman We don't think of it softly here. They are all recognized as heroes who did extremely well considering the circumstances. If anything that incident should show how good they are trained, though I can't recall the Casualty count. Also if you want the official name of Delta it's SFOD-D (Special Force Operation Detatchment- Delta) Operation Gothic Serpent only had one of our special forces involved.
@Imprudentman I also forgot to add, which war with Iraq are you referring to? The Gulf war, or the war on terror/ Husein. You may or may not know, but ever since the beginnings of the Soviet-middle eastern war, we've been increasing our presence there more and more, starting with intelligence operations to arming the Taliban, using SFOD-D, and finally what we have today.
@thecrowandthehawk I meant the second war, when the Americans entered Baghdad and fooled everyone in the world, saying that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
@Imprudentman Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction, and do you know how we knew that? Because we gave them to the Taliban to fight the soviets. Our CIA didn't keep a tight enough leach and we got burned bad for it. Hussein obviously allied with the Taliban, attempted to develop it. But thanks for the specification.
@thecrowandthehawk Hussein just did not like the Pentagon. And military objectives of the Gulf War in 1991 were not met by the Americans. It was therefore invented this lie - about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And here the Taliban? When the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan, the export of narcotics from that country was minimal. When the Americans entered Afghanistan exporting drugs has increased 10 -100 times.
@Imprudentman I never stated the weapons were given during the gulf war. They were given previously, before relations in not only Iraq but the middle east went to shit. It was an operation carried out by the CIA who were already involved in obtaining power through counterintelligence operations. If you want proof look around you. Why do you think were invading and trying to take over all of the middle east? The Taliban today are a joke compared to any military. 100 can't take out 4 seals.
@thecrowandthehawk No buddy. Russian do not want to take for themselves in the Middle East. Maybe some of the economic ties. But the Russian has a huge border with eastern countries. You can see this on the map. Of course they are worried about the situation in Afghanistan. Russian is also concerned that the United States gradually transformed into an empire of democracy.
@Imprudentman I'm speaking of history, not just my own realizations. You can look it up, but there was a Soviet war with the middle east during the 80's. Hence the assassination of the Afghanistan president. And don't worry, It's only a matter of time before the U.S. falls, just like the Soviet Union did. Democracy is similar to communism in the fact they both rely on the ideology that every person can preform equally, when reality reminds us every day that is not so.
@thecrowandthehawk Unfortunately I had problems with the translation of your message. I can tell you that democracy and communism are two different things. The ideas of communism were like a fairy tale and had little to do with reality. Democracy - it is publicly accountable for their actions and respect the views of another person. Although you can not share those views. In a communist country where there is an official ideology hardly possible.
@Imprudentman Democracy is as much as a fairytale as communism. Neither works, for the same reason, people aren't equal. No man is completely equal to another, as I'm sure you're aware. I was simply comparing the two reasons for their failure, not their objectives.
@Imprudentman your informations are wrong. they lost 9 tanks during the first iraq war and they all were destroyed by friendly fire and 14 were damaged by mines and enemy fire. since iraqi freedom were 80 tanks damaged by IED´s and RPG´s. and the armor was not so bad you talked about. 1 tank was hit by 7 shells of a T72 and was only damaged. in urban fightings a tank isn´t good because the tank has not enough space to operate. where do you have those informations about the m1 ?
@stalliman During the first Iraq War (Desert Storm in 1991) United States lost 600 tanks (destroyed, damaged, broken), and 150 aircraft. During the second Iraq war, the Americans lost 400 (destroyed, damaged, broken) tanks and 600 aircraft. Source: The American Army - the biggest myth of the twentieth century by Constantine Kollontai
@Imprudentman do you really think that your stats and facts are true ? i know more than one source which show that my numbers and facts are true. but i never read that the us forces lost so much tanks.
@stalliman Obviously, you should read this article that I quoted in below. Planes are not only to the USA, but also to the coalition. This is a pretty interesting article. I read it with interest.
@stalliman I am quite sure that the author of this article is largely right. This article analyzes all the wars that led to the U.S. for Last 100 years. Findings in general are not the best of the American army.
@Imprudentman you can not believe that your comments are wrong and that you know nothing about the abrams and the 2 gulf wars where the us was involved. so do not tell shit and let your fingers away from your keyboard.
@stalliman The fact is that Desert Storm did not leave the TV screens in 1991. I distinctly remember it. How old were you then? Not yet been born, just like your friend from the Unit
Little Americunts always think they are the best in all.Fucked in the Head by TV and still thinking they are good at Wars but never win 1 War since 1945.Big Militarymachine but just stupid flatheads who use it.
dg2ist 2 days ago
can`t u faggots just accept that the leopard is better than the abrahams??? i mean u americans have 77 trillion$- and the only thing that works in ur country is the army, and even ur army sucks dicks cuz u are loosing against a country where some damn kids with rusty ak's fuck ur highly trained soldiers.... duude these people live in clay houses, they have nothing and u took everything!!!! first get ur hobo people off the street and give'em a good accommodation before u spend money on war
Shooter854 2 days ago
@stalliman The Abrams doesnt have an Engine :D It has a turbine.
Baconmaster92 6 days ago
06132980 your comment makes no sense in English. My point was simply that someone else said German tech is the best in the world. I pointed out that in fact that much of what goes is not a Leopard is not really German tech. In any case it is about time German(s) got over their superiority complex. Other countries produce just as advanced tech as the Germans.
PSA group (Citroen & Renault/Nissan) is a global, no longer a national one. BMW national, Nissan / Peurgot Citroen Global.
smilo996 6 days ago
I can elaborate. 23 have been deployed in Afghan. Four were hit by IED's. Three were damaged and had to be taken back to be repaired and one crewman (sadly) was killed. None has received artiliery hits or engaged any other vehicles. They are being used to support troops. This is not to denigrate the Canadians or Danes but it simply highlights my point about the Leopard being unproven.
smilo996 6 days ago
the m1 abrams is using the german canon "L44" and leopard 2 the german canon "L55" which is much better
TomatenMark95 1 week ago
@TomatenMark95: The Abrams uses a modified "L/44" called M256, which is made by Watervliet Arsenal in the US. The Rheinmetall L/55 is longer, therefore the Ammo does have a higher muzzle velocity. However, the Abrams uses superior Ammo.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
I dream of this and an abrams getting into a skirmish. I would love to see what tank would win.
flyleaf2424 1 week ago
@flyleaf2424: The Tank with the better Crew would win. Both can be destroyed by themselves.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
until so0me actually uses a Leopard in a war and fire the gun at another tank, which no one has dared to do yet, then as I said it remains the worlds best F1 car that has never been in a race.
smilo996 1 week ago
doesn't this speaks for itself? 1. it is easier to purchse weapons from a more non aligned country. 2. If it was cheaper than the Abrams and th Challenger then of course you would. For example the ones being "sold" to Saudi are second hand. The ones Canada now has are "on loan". So no not really.
smilo996 1 week ago
German technology? Developed by: Torsion Bar suspension (FR), sloping armour (US &FR), tanks (UK), gyro sights (UK), SABOT ammo (FR), smooth bore canon (USSR), Ceramic armour (UK), dielse engines (DE) and on.....be careful about the nationalism there. The Leopard has seen active service against 2 IED's. So to say the Abrahms is shit is inaccurate. What happened to the Leopard in Kosovo (Canada) and Afghan (Canada and Denmak)?
smilo996 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@smilo996 maybe . we don´t know which tank is better. but the leopard is used in more western stats(chile, denmark, finland, greece, canada, netherland, norway, austria, switzerland, portugal, sweden and spain) than the challenger and abrams. also turkey and singapore got some of them. saudi arabia and qatar wanted some. doesn't this speaks for itself?
stalliman 2 weeks ago
@stalliman: These Counties can't develop their own Tanks, so they'll buy Leopard II's. But how many? There are about 4x more Abrams Tanks manufactured as Leopard II's. Also these Countries bought the Leopard II because it doesn't need as much fuel as the Abrams. Otherwise Sweden would have bought them! The US could buy the Leopard II too, but they doesn't need it. Btw: Forecast International ranks the M1A2 SEP as Worlds best Battletank.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@TankNutJohn89 its always the same. americans can't accept that there are better things than theirs. ok your abrams where is its canon from ? germany. whats a tank without a canon ? a big metal block but not a tank.
they can't develop their own tanks but why buy those countries the leopard 2 and not the m1 abrmas? because they had tested both tanks and found that the leopard is better. also during WWII the german tanks where the best.
stalliman 1 week ago 6
@stalliman The Cannon is made by Watervliet Arsenal in the United States. We have developed the XM360 which is far superior to the Rh 120 & 140mm. It will be used in the next Abrams-Variant. Our Abrams does have the superior Ammo, better FCS, thicker Turret-Front, better acceleration, and more. These Countries won't buy the M1 because we don't export our newest Tank-Variant. Just without advanced Electronic & DU-Armor, as i said Sweden bought Leo II because of less fuel consumption.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@stalliman: The german Tanks in WW2 were the best? Tiger, Panther & King Tiger doesn't had a great mobility in Russia, too much weight, weak engine. There needs to be a mix between Quality & Quantity, German Tanks were good, but too expensive, 500 Panther can't fight against 3000 T-34/Sherman at the same time. Today 500 Leopard wouldn't win against 3000 Abrams with top-notch crew.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@TankNutJohn89 yes in the next m1 but we dont live in the future. one us soldier , a tank commander of an m1a2 said once after he tested the leopard 2a6 that the leopard is much better than their abrams.
also the engine of the m1 is very bad in desert. did you ever hear an m1? it's like whimpering, whistling. ever heard a leopard 2? that sounds much better and even if only the engine is on the whole building is shivering.
stalliman 1 week ago
@stalliman: Of course, because this Tank Commander have tested both in Combat, huh? The M1 does have better Firepower, better acceleration, better frontal armor, is cheaper, and does have the better electronics & fire-control system. You asked me, if i've heard an Abrams before? I lived at the Daley Barracks in Bad Kissingen, Germany. There were many Abrams. Abrams bad in Desert? 90% of the 3000 Abrams at Desert Storm were Combat Ready. The Abrams isn't unquietly as the Leopard II.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@TankNutJohn89 Mind explaining how the abrams has better firepower if A0-A5 have exactly the same gun and A6 has a newer version?Just asking,im not a tank expert or anything,but i would like to know how that is supposed to work...
f14tomcatfreak 1 week ago
@f14tomcatfreak: The Leopard II uses DM53 & DM63 Wolframcarbide ( Tungsten ) Ammo, with a 650mm long penetrator dart. The Abrams uses M829A3 depleted Uranium Ammo, which penetrates about 10% more RHA at the same muzzle velocity, because its high density. Also the M829A3's penetrators length is 780mm. According to the german Bundeswehr the DM53 can penetrate 810mm RHA at 2km. According to the US the M829A3 can destroy the frontal turret armor of every known Tank.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@f14tomcatfreak: The Abrams does have the more accturate Laser-Rangefinder, and the more modern FCS. At Night the Leopard II uses the WBG Night Vision, it needs to cool up 15 minutes before start. The Leopard II can't fight in a rainy night, the only you can see is green mud. The M1A2 uses 3rd Generation FLIR. The M1A2 was made in 1992, the Leopard 2A5 in 1995. The TUSK had features like mine protection ( A6M ) and remote Weapon Station ( A7+ ) before.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@f14tomcatfreak: The Leopard II can attack targets at 8km, with israeli 120mm LAHAT Anti Tank Guided Missile, the M1A2 can attack enemy Tanks 12km & more with MRM-CE. In 1987 the Abrams performed better as Leopard II and Challenger Tanks in Canadian Army Trophy, also Forecast International ranks the M1A2 SEP as best Battletank in the World. The M1A3 will use M829A4 Ammo with XM360 Electrothermal-chemical Gun. The Abrams is also less expensive and can be made in high numbers. WW2?
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@f14tomcatfreak: Also the M1A2 don't use exactly the same Gun, the M256 is made by Watervliet Arsenal in the US, and is based on German Rheinmetall L/44 with slightly different changes.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@TankNutJohn89 I looked up the guns...almost identical,exept the Leopard uses a hydraulic recoil sytem and the Abrams a Spring system,exept the L55 which is longer in order to archieve higher muzzle velocity and more range and penetration...Also I´ve read that the Leopard 2 is apparently not only easy to maintenance,but also easy to upgrade,especially the armor and electronics.Also,i have a question...What if you load the M829 into a L/55?
f14tomcatfreak 1 week ago
@f14tomcatfreak: The Leopard II needs Upgrades, even 2A4 isn't state of the art anymore. The Abrams also is easy to upgrade, but this will increase the weight up to over 70t. The M829 is designed for L/44, higher charge, longer penetrator. I don't know, nobody tried this so far. In fact, the longer Cannon is the Leopard II's only advantage. Without L/55 ( A5 and less ) the Leopard II can't destroy enemy Tanks in the front, especially russian t-series with modern reactive armor.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@TankNutJohn89 Who knows if it even will be used in a few years...i wonder what its successor will be,though,i suspect it will be somewhat based on the NGP project like the Puma
f14tomcatfreak 1 week ago
@f14tomcatfreak: We only can wait & see. The final M1A3 will be shown in 2014.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@TankNutJohn89 the m1a1 is still expected to remain in service in 2021 and the m1a2 will beyond the year 2050. till the new m1 get in service it will take a while.
stalliman 1 week ago
@stalliman: The M1A2 is in Service since 1992, in this time the Germans still had Leopard 2A4. The M1E3 Abrams Evolutionary Design is nearly finished. With MRM-CE ( XM1111 ) the M1A3 could attack enemy Tanks at 12km and more.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@TankNutJohn89 The panthers were not overly complicated to produce. Buzt daily bombing raids hampered the production. neither americans nor russians had such problems and thus could produce their stuff at max speed.
If the german manufactoring plants would have been inefficient the allies would not have stolen and used them up to the 1970's
BugMagnet 1 week ago
@BugMagnet: Yeah, would, would, would... maybe the "Luftwaffe" wasn't powerful enough, to stop the bombing raids?
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@stalliman: You are completely RIGHT, Stalliman!!
Kirovets7011 1 week ago
@stalliman I agree with you: The gun of the M1A2 Abrams is an RHEINMETALL German 120mm smoothbore gun, made in Germay, all Abrams use this gun!!!
That is a fact!!!
American Tank, with the Gun from a german, modern LEOPARD 2 *lol*
BlueBoy11033 13 hours ago
@TankNutJohn89 in your dreams ;)
coverdeciption 1 week ago
@TankNutJohn89 9.000 Abrahams vs 6.000 Leos as i know, maybe i´m wrong. Saudi Arabia & Indonesia will be part of the leo Family this year ;)
SuperOiiiiiiiiiii 1 week ago
@SuperOiiiiiiiiiii: Over 9000 Abrams, and about 2000 are Leopard 2A5 & A6.
TankNutJohn89 1 week ago
@smiilo996: You know jack SHIT about the Leopard 2A6/A7!! The whole tank is made in Germany by Kraus Maffei Wegman in Munich. The smoothbored gun is made by Rheinmetall in Munich and is the SAME gun as on the Abrahams, namely the Rheinmetall L55 gun. Kraus Maffei also makes the armour, consisting from composit material, including tungsten. The engine is made by MTU in Germany.
In short: I have never seen someone written so much bullshit about a tank!!
Kirovets7011 1 week ago 10
@smilo996 produced not invented you slave ;)
coverdeciption 1 week ago
@smilo996 Well? What did happen to the Canada and Denmark Leopards ? Do you mind elaborating.
brentano2277 1 week ago
@smilo996 so ur saying just because the idea the design and the assembly were german it is not german?.. so every movie who uses special effects made in another country or plays in another country or has artists from another country IS from another country? if i bake an unsual shaped bread with an excelent unusual taste made from various components in an epic mix, but i use use salt and water from france .. its not a bread made by me anymore.. its a bread from france? fuck off
061323980 6 days ago
@smilo996 as an example many cars made from nissan (japan) are using renault engines (france) like nearly every car has components from other countrys.. or they get their metal components from other countrys still u would say (for example) a renault is france even if hes using parts from japan or whatever.. citroen developer of the Torsion bar suspension used in the same car german parts... so is citroen still france? in ur logic NO and so ur whole logic fails in core points...
061323980 6 days ago
@smilo996 Everything you just said is too generalized to be valid. The US isn't using it's own tech then either, and everything you just said can be applied to most nations. History shows the Germans make the best tanks, and the Abrams hardly has a track record, seeing as we have yet to fight a real military. Cheaper, more armor, more maneuverable, better gun, and best of all, the tracks don't slip off when you're driving sideways on a hill. Look into it, it happens.
AlexanderRuin 1 day ago
stalliman. I think it is fair to say that the Challenger and Abrams have been severely tested against tanks, though not the T90 yet, anti tank weapons, mines, RPG's. The Leopard has encountered 2 small IED's. So interns of the realities of usage and the conditions of usage the Leopard remains good on paper.
smilo996 2 weeks ago
no one knows in reality how good or poorly the Leaopard performs because it has not really been tested in prolonged combat unlike the Challenger and the Abrahms. Both have performed well. The Challenger with the longest tank kill recorded and defensive resistance. The Abrams in prolonged combat situations and the ability for it to be completely stripped and rebuilt for example.
smilo996 2 weeks ago
@smilo996 no the leopard was in kosovo and is also in afghanistan. but they never fought against another tank. the challanger and abrams also never fought against a tank on their level. they only fought against some T72 and T54 during the the wars in iraq.
stalliman 2 weeks ago 3
@stalliman They are all 3 outstanding MBT's. The armor and firepower differences are minute. I'm just glad they are all on the same side!!! Nothing from the east would last very long against them. I do wish the Abrams would go to a diesel engine just for efficiency sake but that gas turbine is a monster engine.
Blacklung27 2 weeks ago
@smilo996 tttzzz hot air ;)
coverdeciption 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
leopard made in germany! we build cool tanks here !=P
TheRene111111 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gayrman military = F-4 (obsolete American junk), Eurofarter (Based on 1980's British EAP aircraft), Tornado junk ( British, Italian and gayrman coproduction) , Tiger (French design), Global Hawk (American), Heron (Israeli), UH-1(American), CH-53(American)...the only indigenous gayrman junk is Leofart II :) It has been tested against Taliban armed with AK-47s so far LOL
Cengiz78x 3 weeks ago
German tank...its so shiny(dog eyes)
Karschdk 3 weeks ago
LINDO !!!
cavalothpya 4 weeks ago
At 2:41 I actually had trouble focusing my eyes on the tank itself, the left part of the tank and the left part of the turret completely blended in with the environment. SICK camouflage pattern.
ScoopzyDaizy 1 month ago
I have a question: Why do most tanks put more emphasis on protection from the front ? I mean, the thickest part of the armor is often in the front, and in particular the Merkava have its engine in front of the crew.
kertaspaper94 1 month ago
@kertaspaper94
Because the front is most likely to face the enemy.
If they should have the same armor all over, it would also mean a significant weight increase, which is not good for the overall performance of a tank.
agaronek 1 month ago
@kertaspaper94
Because: if the tank is looking straight at you witth the hull and turret, its width is only 3 to 4 meters, the side is allot longer with 7 to 9 meters. Tanks will position themself in danger so that the front is facing the enemy, making them in the prosses difficulter to hit, and if the enemy does hit, the frontal armor is allot thicker of course. Usually the front is the thickest, sides the second best protected and the rear and top the least.
MercenaryZack 3 weeks ago
leopard is like mercedes benz of MBT...
constantmotionish 1 month ago
Japan Type10
watch?v=ffNiosiPlxY
watch?v=1s-yLXhRxxA
CrimeAvenger2 1 month ago
i have just heard that Indonesia are looking to buy this tank, is that true?
ThePutraUSman 1 month ago
@ThePutraUSman Yup...it's true. Last time Iheard, it's second hand. I hope new ones of course.
andreasdarmana 1 month ago
Comment removed
ngengsel 1 month ago
@ThePutraUSman I heard Obama goes into the solarium, is that true?
TheDustyRavage 1 month ago
2 leo"s + ein gepard
und wir hätten den 2ten
gewonnen
osnajo 1 month ago
9 Russians dislikes this video !! greeting from U.S.A !!
sargon08 2 months ago
@sargon08 Russians likes german tanks, why not?
STALKERBooka 1 month ago
hyper gay soundtrack
captainumbnuts3 2 months ago
0:42 BOOM HEADSHOT
BeatzzzVideos 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
0:48 DIE HIPPIES!
108Dax 3 months ago
Germany's goal: Quality over Quanity. This thing would blow your rear end off if you came into the buisness end of this.
hurstolds841 3 months ago
@hurstolds841 While I agree that quality is a VERY important factor, I must also admit that mass production capabilities are what wins a war, and only a few countries can mass produce tanks as fine as Germany's.
notessimodude 2 months ago
challenger > leopard > abrahms
Siberian68 3 months ago
@Siberian68: Forecast International said: M1A2 SEP [ first ] Leopard 2A6 [ fourth ] Challenger 2 [ fifth ]
TankNutJohn89 3 months ago
made in germany :)
Kayasha87 3 months ago
I'm glad that Germany is on the USA side. Those Russian T-90s will get obliterated by the Leo2 series before they even have a chance to face the M1Abrams.
quickzilver333 3 months ago
@quickzilver333 You're right. But AH-64's and A-10's will be all over their asses before that ever happens. Team play.
5xthejoy 3 months ago
@5xthejoy I just say wiesel ozelot.
FrancisJoa 3 months ago
beautiful tank keep up the work germany!
Kainvarrow 3 months ago
Comment removed
Joan6000 4 months ago
this version was build to kill civilians. Can't believe we are going there again.
DasIllu 4 months ago
@DasIllu no its not to kill civilians. its called leopard PSO and PSO stands for Peace support operation and it has features to communicate with peophle outside without any threat for the crew and so on
Waldhuette33 4 months ago
do you love the flyin leopard 1 too?
w709000 4 months ago
OK. I like to place an order for one Leopard, so I can put the singer, from the background music, out of his fucking misery...
MrPyjamaTrousers 4 months ago
With modern missile technology, tanks are now just big targets.
altratronic 4 months ago
@altratronic not realy, infantry antitank-missle like javelin has only a range of 2km... and a tank have better vision optics than a infantryman.
and when u fight against a well equiped country with good anti-air u must go back to the roots and call your tanks. infantry cant push/move so fast like an tank/mech.infantry amry... that means u are an easy target for arty with a slow only infanrty army. look back to the yom kippur war, tanks played the largest role... despite antitankmissle's!
gOtze1337 4 months ago
@altratronic Most hand held anti-tank missiles and rockets can penetrate only 600-900ish mm of armor. Whilst most MBT's have over a 1000mm. The Leopard2A5 has about 1800mm of CE protection on it's turret for example.
Failcard 4 months ago
GREAT TANK ,GLORY TO THE GERMAN MILITARY
xhoi96 4 months ago
Rommel would be proud ;) Modern tool for modern ghost division :)
Ravenlord79 5 months ago 44
@Ravenlord79 absolutely correct :D
Michel445 5 months ago
@Ravenlord79 why rommel, gauderian
KohlieVarak 4 months ago
@Ravenlord79 rommel was the desert fox not the ghost division as far as i know
Waldhuette33 4 months ago
@Waldhuette33 7. panzer division, aka ghost division, was led by Rommel in France campain in summer -40. "the 7th Panzer Division earned the name of the Ghost Division because its rapid movements led to few knowing exactly where the Divisig the German Hon was, includinigh Command. "
Ravenlord79 4 months ago
Germany has the best tanks in all the world!
USA knows it and the world know it.
Greetings from Peru!
teamoperu28julio1 5 months ago
@teamoperu28julio1 My girlfriend is Peruvian; I love that country <3
DJonX7 5 months ago
Kurze Frage: Weiss jemand wie hoch der Treibstoffverbrauch bei Fahrten im Gelände und auf der Straße ist?
T1w4z 5 months ago
wild and sexy....
temelreis85 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Germany makes the most finest tank ever compare to any other countries !
Ausfy 5 months ago 55
@Ausfy Challenger 2 M1A2SEP-TUSK2 T90MS MerkavaIV K2.
wat
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 They are cool too, but German perfection is unbeatable ;) The Leopard is the coolest looking wagon on the market! :)
Khristophoros1001 3 months ago
@Khristophoros1001 Leo2A6 RHAe vs 100mm APfSDS: ~350mm. Basically nothing but a backing plate & those sloped penetration-disrupting modules, which are like 15mm thick. Perforated armor is very heavily optimized to a single caliber projectile. Meanwhile, DU mesh laid with ceramics + stock chobham, heavy layered ceramics, silica, or extremely well-sloped composite modules, reactive armor, etc., all have uniform protection versus a wide array of calibers.
Also, all the stated tanks are superior.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@redreaper2020 We will not know what is the superior tank before they are properly tested in combat ;)
Khristophoros1001 3 months ago
@Khristophoros1001 They never will be, because if Germany invades France again, we're just gonna let 'em. The French are ungrateful as shit.
Though perforated armor is shit against sub-optimum threats (threats it's not designed specifically to resist). It's great against HEAT, but a change in penetrator will defeat it. We experimented with using it on early M1s before M1A1, but decided against it.
ofc, perf. steel is much cheaper and lighter than DU-reinforced chobham.
redreaper2020 3 months ago
@Ausfy Yeah but it's sad that there are still plenty of ignorant American idiots claiming the M1A2's fallacious superiority.
usafpilot29 3 months ago
@usafpilot29 Your a fool. And your anti-American bigotry is just astounding. All the experts in the world who know what they're talking about place the M1A2 above any othe MBT operating in the world today. Your ignorance and America bashing won't change that fact.
0Heavy0Metal0 2 months ago
@0Heavy0Metal0 Oh wow I am a fool. Your biased statement shows how ridiculous American arrogance can be. German units are more effective. Your American shit tanks are moving target practice for the Leopard.
usafpilot29 2 months ago
@usafpilot29 you are a fool.
0Heavy0Metal0 2 months ago
@Ausfy NOOOOO...The best tanks are made in Iceland
khmerog1 2 months ago
now thats a fucking ufo tank COOL!
weaklypaskaa2 6 months ago
Now that is pure heavy fucking metal!!!
VIPER03100 6 months ago
Please NO MUSIC, let us hear the beast instead.
pipedane 6 months ago
0:52 Das ist doch Der A4 ?
MultiParkourboy 6 months ago
Comment removed
MultiParkourboy 6 months ago
Comment removed
MultiParkourboy 6 months ago
The german tanks are the best
MisterMensch1 7 months ago
Eine Schande, dass dieser Panzer nach Saudi-Arabien geliefert wird!
Er sollte nur in Deutschland bleiben!
Deutsche Ingenieurskunst!
tobius96 7 months ago
@tobius96 da hast du recht eine schande
MisterMensch1 7 months ago
does that kill?
barbarotico 7 months ago
Fuck military
smashfascismforever 7 months ago
Does anyone know which armor rates better, the Leopard 2A7+ or the M1 Abrams tank? Don't get me wrong, they're both massive machines capable of far greater damage than most could imagine.
thecrowandthehawk 7 months ago
@thecrowandthehawk both armors are good. i dont think that there is a big difference between both armors. but the us military dont make all about the m1a2 public. so we dont know exactly which armor is better. but i and many other guys think that the armor of the leooard 2a6 is good as the armor of the m1a2. but to get a right answer you should tell that question some generals of the us army and german army. and when you compare both answers you would have answered your question.
stalliman 7 months ago
@stalliman Ha, it's funny they make it classified, because it would seem very easy to obtain. All the enemy would have to do is destroy an Abrams tank and crack it open. Though, I guarantee that the Leopard 2A7+ would stand a very good chance against an M1Abrams, both are much better than what 99% if not 100% of what other countries have mass produced. also, sind Sie ein Deutschlander?
thecrowandthehawk 7 months ago
@thecrowandthehawk yes i am german. when you say german in german you say Deutscher. not Deutschlander but Deutschlander sounds funny. when it is so easy to destroy an m1a2 and look which materials were used someone had done that already. i know that there were m1abrams destroyed but they were all brought back to the usa .
stalliman 7 months ago
@stalliman ah, entschuldigung, mein Deutsch ist nicht so gut, aber ich kann nicht ein gutes deutsch Lehrer/ Lehrerin finden. Denn diese, ich muss English sprechen. - If you could understand any of that (my german is horrible). Also, was your third sentance supposed to be a question, because I'm at a loss for understanding. Are you implying that someone has already done that and released the information? In Operation Desert Storm, the U.S. lost 4 of the roughly 3000 tanks sent out.
thecrowandthehawk 7 months ago
@thecrowandthehawk i mean all these destroyed m1abrams were brought back to the usa . so no one could crack a tank open and see which materials were used. you also cant see which materials were used. so you have to do some chemical tests and not many people have the know how for that. you can google it and you will find some informations about the armor of the tank. the list there are not 100% right and maybe there are not all materials in the list which were used.
stalliman 7 months ago
@thecrowandthehawk But you forget that US army lost between 2003 and 2011 more than 80+ Abrams in Iraq and Afghanistan.
maghrebi28 7 months ago
@maghrebi28: These were M1's & M1A1's, the M1A1 does have 400mm RHA, the M1A1 HA+ with Depleted Uranium does have about 800mm RHA, the M1A2 about 900mm & the SEP 960mm RHA, the TUSK with ARAT II even over 1000mm RHA [KE] like Challenger 2 or T-84M with Nosch-2. You can't compare the old Abrams with the newer ones.
TankNutJohn89 3 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 might be possible, but the Abrams is still using the Same Rheinmetall LH55 Cannon like the Leopard2.. but without the German stabilizing ;) If i had to choose, i would always prefer the Leopard2..
weigibabe 2 months ago
@weigibabe: What? The Abrams isn't using the Rheinmetall L/55. It uses the Watervliet M256, which is basically the same as the Rheinmetall L/44. We don't need the german stabilization, we have our own. We had the same WBG as the Leopard 2A6, now we have FLIR 3rd Gen. We had Carl Zeiss LRF of Leopard 2A6, now it's improved by Raytheon.
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 OK, My fault.. but still based on a German Design ;) like some of the other Components.. but anyway, for me (and not only based on my German point of view) the Leopard is the better Tank.. there must be a reason why so many Countries bought the Leopard instead of the Abrams.. Last one is Saudi-Arabia i think.. must be a little Problem with the Turbine in Deserts ;)
weigibabe 2 months ago
@weigibabe: German Design, however. The Gun is made in the US with american Steel. Forecast International ranks the M1A2 SEP as Worlds best Battletank. The Leopard 2A6 is fourth. Well... because the lack of uranium ammo & costs of the Gas-Turbine. There are about 500 Leopard 2A6's. We had 3000 Abrams in Iraq, and we had little problems with the Gas-Turbine & the logistics.
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 little problems?? a new turbine every 500 miles?? this isn't a little Problem.. and the Fuelconsumption is.. hmm.. American... not what i call efficient. and Uranium? thats the reason why Iraq is now contaminated with radioactive dust..and by the way.. the L55 is way better like every derivate of the L44 Cannon.. and Jane's Defence Weekly listed the Leopard2A6m at no.1 of the best tanks. it's the best tank you can have for your money..
weigibabe 2 months ago
@weigibabe: We have enough Gas-Turbines, 90% of our Abrams were ready for Combat permanently. When Tactical-Idle Mode is selected it doesn't drink so much as you think, and the M1 does have the greatest accleration of a Battletank. The L/55 is better than L/44, but the M829A3 is also far better than DM63. The M1A2 TUSK does have mine-protection unlike Leopard 2A6, the M1A2 SEP does have better electronics & systems that will be in use in Leopard 2A7. Both are great Tanks.
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 you may have enough Gasturbines, but if you have to change it every 300-500 kilometers it's not really a useful engine.. and Mine-protection? think about what the "m" in Leopard A6M is for.. exactly, improved mineProtection ;) and the DM63 got a initial velocity of ~1750 m/sec instead of 1555 m/sec with the M829A3, OK its not that heavy but it also does not contains radioactive Materials. ask your troops, many of them falls ill after breathing the Dust..
weigibabe 2 months ago
@weigibabe: I have mentioned of the Leopard 2A6, not the A6M, as you know the M1A2 is made in 1992, the Leopard 2A5 in 1995. The TUSK had Mine-Protection before Leopard 2A6M & the remote control LMG before Leopard 2A7. The M1 Abrams does also have the better FCS, Optics & Laser-Rangefinder. Velocity is that high because of the L/55 Gun, even the M829, M829A1 & M829A2 had a higher velocity than the M829A3. But wait about the M829A4 with the electrothermical-chemical M360A1. 12km Range
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 yeah, and thats why the leopard is winning the deals XD there must be a reason why 19 Countries had chosen the Leopard and only 6 the Abrams?? last one was Saudi Arabia with > 200 Tanks ordered.. one reason for this deal was the Turbine of the Abrams that needs much more maintenance like the good ol' V10 in the Leopard.. and this machine does not care about the Fuel you use. it runs with flour if you want it.. not with 1500hp but it runs ;)
weigibabe 2 months ago
@weigibabe: However, Sweden have tested them, they would have bought the Abrams, but they have chosen the Leopard 2, which has 2 reasons, lower fuel consumption, and less heat. Greece now get's M1A1 Abrams, but they have already Leopard 2A4 & A6's. Saudi Arabia probably collects Tanks, they have bought T-90, Abrams & Leopard Tanks... and tested the Challenger 2. Crazy, isn't it?
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
@TankNutJohn89 oh i forgot.. Saudi Arabia is using the Abrams because we dont want to deliver leopards to this Country in the past.. but it looks like we are doing it now ;)
weigibabe 2 months ago
thats why we are using tungsten to make the penetrators. Much harder, nearly the weight of depleted Uranium but without the massive effects of contaminating the Environment. The US-Troops in Kosovo fired a lot of this Ammunition with the A10 and what happens some time later? a lot of malformed Babies where born there! and this is definetly unbearable! but anyway, the only way to find out which tank is the best is to see who wins the fight ;) hopefully this will never happen..
weigibabe 2 months ago
@weigibabe: Nope, Tungsten aka Wolframcarbide isn't harder than depleted Uranium. 16g/cm³ density & 19g/cm³ density. Btw, the M829A3 ( 780mm ) does have a longer penetrator than the DM63 ( 646mm ) Even if they fight you wouldn't know which Tank is better, you don't see pro's & con's, it's depending on the Crew, every Tank can be destroyed by an A-10, are all Tanks bad now?
TankNutJohn89 2 months ago
@weigibabe Abrams is shit in compare with Leopard2a6.German technology is the best in the world!
VRILPOWER777 3 weeks ago
@thecrowandthehawk During the war with Iraq, the Americans lost about 1,000 tanks Abrams (damaged, destroyed, padded). You guys blow the brains well. : D The auxiliary power unit tank M1A1 was poorly covered by armor. It could bring down heavy machine gun fire. Side armor of the tank M1A1 could be broken by fire of the old Russian anti-tank missiles (60 s of release) and RPG -7.
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@Imprudentman I have no idea what "You guys blow the brains well" means, unless you're referring to "you blow my mind". Though I didn't know that, did you just find this through research or have you had some personal experience with the M1A1 Abrams?
thecrowandthehawk 6 months ago
@thecrowandthehawk You can find a lot of material about the broken tank Abrams here on YouTube. Any military interest in the fighting taking place in the world. I read a review of some Russian specialists about the combat readiness of the U.S. Army. She was found not satisfactory. There have also been analyzed in the war, which was attended by the U.S. military. Conclusions - The U.S. Army is poorly trained armed forces.
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@Imprudentman I wouldn't consider Youtube a valid source, as I know for sure the only thing you hear in the U.S. is what they want you to hear. And if you want to look at the standard troops you are correct, they are kids with basic training. If you consider the best troops such as Delta, they are a force to be reckoned with, in terms of combat. Of course Delta and DEVGRU supposedly don't exist according to the U.S. officials. Supposedly we're still using SEALTEAM 6 which has been disbanded.
thecrowandthehawk 6 months ago
@thecrowandthehawk You wrote about the Delta. This team has a bad experience with Mogadishu-1993. Also, other U.S. special groups are not always lucky - I say softly. The history of United States Special Forces tragic.
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@Imprudentman We don't think of it softly here. They are all recognized as heroes who did extremely well considering the circumstances. If anything that incident should show how good they are trained, though I can't recall the Casualty count. Also if you want the official name of Delta it's SFOD-D (Special Force Operation Detatchment- Delta) Operation Gothic Serpent only had one of our special forces involved.
thecrowandthehawk 6 months ago
@thecrowandthehawk meant it literally
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@Imprudentman Ohs lol, was just kind of a weird statement.
thecrowandthehawk 6 months ago
@Imprudentman I also forgot to add, which war with Iraq are you referring to? The Gulf war, or the war on terror/ Husein. You may or may not know, but ever since the beginnings of the Soviet-middle eastern war, we've been increasing our presence there more and more, starting with intelligence operations to arming the Taliban, using SFOD-D, and finally what we have today.
thecrowandthehawk 6 months ago
@thecrowandthehawk I meant the second war, when the Americans entered Baghdad and fooled everyone in the world, saying that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@Imprudentman Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction, and do you know how we knew that? Because we gave them to the Taliban to fight the soviets. Our CIA didn't keep a tight enough leach and we got burned bad for it. Hussein obviously allied with the Taliban, attempted to develop it. But thanks for the specification.
thecrowandthehawk 6 months ago
@thecrowandthehawk Hussein just did not like the Pentagon. And military objectives of the Gulf War in 1991 were not met by the Americans. It was therefore invented this lie - about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And here the Taliban? When the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan, the export of narcotics from that country was minimal. When the Americans entered Afghanistan exporting drugs has increased 10 -100 times.
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@Imprudentman I never stated the weapons were given during the gulf war. They were given previously, before relations in not only Iraq but the middle east went to shit. It was an operation carried out by the CIA who were already involved in obtaining power through counterintelligence operations. If you want proof look around you. Why do you think were invading and trying to take over all of the middle east? The Taliban today are a joke compared to any military. 100 can't take out 4 seals.
thecrowandthehawk 6 months ago
@thecrowandthehawk No buddy. Russian do not want to take for themselves in the Middle East. Maybe some of the economic ties. But the Russian has a huge border with eastern countries. You can see this on the map. Of course they are worried about the situation in Afghanistan. Russian is also concerned that the United States gradually transformed into an empire of democracy.
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@Imprudentman I'm speaking of history, not just my own realizations. You can look it up, but there was a Soviet war with the middle east during the 80's. Hence the assassination of the Afghanistan president. And don't worry, It's only a matter of time before the U.S. falls, just like the Soviet Union did. Democracy is similar to communism in the fact they both rely on the ideology that every person can preform equally, when reality reminds us every day that is not so.
thecrowandthehawk 6 months ago
@thecrowandthehawk Unfortunately I had problems with the translation of your message. I can tell you that democracy and communism are two different things. The ideas of communism were like a fairy tale and had little to do with reality. Democracy - it is publicly accountable for their actions and respect the views of another person. Although you can not share those views. In a communist country where there is an official ideology hardly possible.
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@Imprudentman Democracy is as much as a fairytale as communism. Neither works, for the same reason, people aren't equal. No man is completely equal to another, as I'm sure you're aware. I was simply comparing the two reasons for their failure, not their objectives.
thecrowandthehawk 6 months ago
@thecrowandthehawk Citizens of one country should have equal rights in the state. Is not that so?
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@Imprudentman Perhaps equal rights, however not equal influence and power.
thecrowandthehawk 6 months ago
@Imprudentman your informations are wrong. they lost 9 tanks during the first iraq war and they all were destroyed by friendly fire and 14 were damaged by mines and enemy fire. since iraqi freedom were 80 tanks damaged by IED´s and RPG´s. and the armor was not so bad you talked about. 1 tank was hit by 7 shells of a T72 and was only damaged. in urban fightings a tank isn´t good because the tank has not enough space to operate. where do you have those informations about the m1 ?
stalliman 6 months ago
@stalliman During the first Iraq War (Desert Storm in 1991) United States lost 600 tanks (destroyed, damaged, broken), and 150 aircraft. During the second Iraq war, the Americans lost 400 (destroyed, damaged, broken) tanks and 600 aircraft. Source: The American Army - the biggest myth of the twentieth century by Constantine Kollontai
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@Imprudentman do you really think that your stats and facts are true ? i know more than one source which show that my numbers and facts are true. but i never read that the us forces lost so much tanks.
stalliman 6 months ago
@stalliman Obviously, you should read this article that I quoted in below. Planes are not only to the USA, but also to the coalition. This is a pretty interesting article. I read it with interest.
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@stalliman I am quite sure that the author of this article is largely right. This article analyzes all the wars that led to the U.S. for Last 100 years. Findings in general are not the best of the American army.
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@Imprudentman you can not believe that your comments are wrong and that you know nothing about the abrams and the 2 gulf wars where the us was involved. so do not tell shit and let your fingers away from your keyboard.
stalliman 6 months ago
Comment removed
Imprudentman 6 months ago
@stalliman The fact is that Desert Storm did not leave the TV screens in 1991. I distinctly remember it. How old were you then? Not yet been born, just like your friend from the Unit