If Rommel was in command, he will said:"Forget the Abram, the Bradley will suffice, reserve the Abram for emergency backup, all Bradley and supply vehicle of Fuel & TOW AT missiles will do!"
And he will still win with little casualty, cause Iraqi High Command said: What the fuck, where are my Elite Guard??? They are in front of us already for fuck sake!!!!"
@Spetsnazas Yea man u are right, hate this USA propaganda bullshit. They were the masters that they destroyed over 1000 tanks and meanwhile USA only maybe lost 1 tank which was a mechanic failure.
@alegiunti80 screwed your name up again. LOL Sorry, my last comments were from my phone. Easy to hit the wrong button on the phone. At any rate, as I said, they were able to get off a few shots and unfortunately at least one connected. I suspect more Americans died from friendly fire than from the Iraqis. Thats war though. Amazingly few coalition forces were killed in desert storm though when you compare it to WW1, WW2 or Viet Nam.
It is amazing how Erwin Rommel was leading tanks so well ; when in ww1 he never touched a tank . All these men like Guderian never grew up with tanks . Heck , they usually had to make fake tanks just to practice because of the treaty that was imposed on em
Russia would have a hard tme fighting any war on forgein land out of Europe . they just do not have the trucks , planes, choppers to support logistics/ supplies/ and stuff on a huge scale. Hell United states has 12 air craft carriers the next closest country has 1. We have so many Planes , airports , truck carriers , huge navy, great logistics. BTW , this was not a battle ; this was a massacre
IT says that the rushing in tactic was developed by Rommel, i may be wrong, but german tanks stopped still in order to fire, the "rush" tactic was developed by the British cruiser tank commanders to fight like a ship "constantly moving" and trained the gunner to hit the target at full speed.
as shown in WW2 it is tactics and air superiority that win everything the germans had most of the best tanks and commanders but when the allies finally got their act together, gained air superiority and their commanders gained the needed experience they pretty much over ran the axis but have numbers is good too but just as seen in the 2nd gulf war the coalition forces were out numbered but had air superiority, tactics and experience but as said in basic army training "no 2 battles are the same"
ok, so let's stop that shittyT72 vs M1A1 dialog; these ppl say themselfs -main element of victory is surprise, speed and violence of the attack, technological edge (in 3rd place mind you); Americans would win even if you give them shittier tanks
Soviet t72s were better but thier gun still had problems penetrating the frontal armor, and the gun was the same. If the Russians were commanding the t72s the Americans would have lost those bradleys, and probably a couple of Abrams, but not as much as you guys seem to think. The good t72s still would have problems cuz of the optics
one thing they forgot to say is the abramas is the only tank with a gyroscope (still is) in it. Also I -3 rommel ( no homo) because he was the best tank commander ever
@madpigz777 And by gyroscope you mean the gun stabilisation system so they can engage targets on the move well that isnt the only tank with as the the British Challenger 2 mbt has that and just about everything the same as the Abrams except the challenger has a rifled gun which is more acurate than the Abrams smoothbore - Greetings from England
@Awesomeduud Rommel was one of the best general in WWII. Afrika Corp is the only German Army who was not put on trial for war crimes gained the admiration of both sides. Patton studied on Rommel's works, that's why americans has such admiration for Erwin
dont see y these american are all that.....they were fighting un educated tank commanders, the tabks doesnt matter its the commanders that matter, i bet if they were versing soviet tank commanders in those t72s which were stripped to make them cheaper the americans would take heavy loses....im not say the americans suck so all u americans out there take no offence
@CCCP307 True, very true. People say T72s suck because of what happened in Iraq. They don't realize they were the shitty version. Let's see America take on Russia and get the same results. I assure, they'll be bitching about their losses.
For those interested in this battle, go read "Warrior's Rage: the great tank battle of 73 easting" by Douglas Macgregor. It's his account of this battle (in more detail that he gives here) and without the History Channel's simple-minded cheesiness.
us and its allies always impose sanction to a country before they invade till their morality is weaken, in addition they never go to war alone n force alliance nation to join
@BlueHawkPictures17 The Russian T-90 is a powerful tank. No one knows who will win. Now if you are a "patriotic" american who thinks america always win then abrams would win. Now if you look at statistics or results and there's none, then your answer would be, "I dunno"
@Awesomeduud i think youre cuite right, if i had ha choise i coose the m1a2 tusk cause it has beter optics and target acqusison so the chanse is that you see the t90 first and respond and since the heavyer armor of the t90 dont cover the hwole front aspect of the tank you might get lucky XD. so i think this goes under The "i dunno" awnser
@Awesomeduud Haha, I consider myself a patriotic american, and I understand that technology is core, but that it all eventually falls on crew training.
@YapLee1314 The Abrams armor has never been penetrated all the way through the crew compartment. It has been damaged and dissabled by IED, RPGs, mines and anti-tank weapons. Compare that to the Russian made T-72 and T-80 during their ecounter with the Chechen rebels. Mind you that these are not Export model T-72 and T-80. The Chenchen rebels are slicing through there armor all the way through the crew compartment like butter.
@quickzilver333 not true. During the Gulf War 23 Abrams were disabled, five suffered penatrating hits, and five were out right destroyed. The new upgraded Abrams have yet to have anti-tank guided weaponary fired at them, but abbondoned tanks have been destroyed by missile strikes. Compare this too the British Challenger 2 that has yet to loose a single tank to enemy fire.
@canadaloveswhiskey Please read my comments carefully. I never said the Abrams has never been dissabled or penetrated. I said the Abrams Armor hasn't been penetrated "ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE CREW COMPARTMENT". The Abrams crew survived. Any tank can be dissabled by Mines, IED, RPGs, Anti-tank missiles etc.. etc.. The British Challenger 2 has been dissabled by enemy fire. The crew survived just like the Abrams.
@quickzilver333 Again not true. There have been numerous causilties including one killed due to penetrating hits, the KIA was the loader sitting in the turret.
Also Anti-Tank missiles destroy targets by penetrating armour, not just through explosive power.
@canadaloveswhiskey You are full of crap! The British Chanllenger II have been damage and disabled by enemy fire in Iraq. The Abrams encountered most of the Iraqi Armored units and attacks by RPGs and anti-tanks missiles. There is not a single crew that was killed on the Abrams. The Challenger II hardly see combat in Iraq compared that to the Abrams ecounters against the Iraqi Armored Division.
According to the Army’s Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, 23 Abrams tanks were destroyed or damaged in the Persian Gulf area. Of the nine Abrams destroyed, seven were due to friendly fire, and two were intentionally destroyed to prevent capture after they became disabled. Other Abrams tanks were damaged by enemy fire, land mines, on-board fires, or to prevent capture after they became disabled." From Early performance assessment of Bradleys and Abrams, p. 24.
@quickzilver333 As stated above, in one egagement at the Norfolk line, an Abram tank was hit by an RPG and three depleted urianium rounds penetrated the turret, killing the loader as well as two other wounded. Only one Challanger 2 has been lost, to freindly fire, and two damaged. You are also incorrect in saying that the Challenger 2 has not seen extensive service which it has during the seige of Basra, as well as other ground operations.
@canadaloveswhiskey LOL! You are an idiot. The Abrams has seen more battles than the Challenger II. Any tank can be dissabled. The important thing is the crew survival. You are just making up shit about the Abrams loader that got killed. The Abrams has seen more tank to tank battle plus RPG and anti-tank missiles attack than the Challenger II and thats a Fact. The Abrams is also present in Afghanistan and The Challenger II is absent...LOL!
@quickzilver333 Of course the Abrams have seen more action, thye've been around since the 1980's, Fifteen years longer! What I was saying is that you good sir, are wrong in the fact that the Abrams have never been penetrated. How do you you think men have been wounded while inside the tank?
@quickzilver333 That does not mean that the M1 is NOT a great tank. Obviously it is, since it has been around for the 29 years it has been in service, and you are right in that its armour and safty gear has no doubt saved the lives of many of the crews who have served in them. But you are denying facts! Look up the M1's history in the first Gulf and you will see that the tank is not as invincible as you are making it out to be.
@quickzilver333 Now I must admit that I was mistaken. In the Battle of Norfolk, it was not the loader who was killed, he was one of the WIAs, the gunner was the one who was killed, when his tank, Bumber B-66 of the 2nd Armoured Division was hit by three DU rounds from another Abrams, one of which penetrated below the turret, after being hit by an RPG, killing him and wounding two others.
@canadaloveswhiskey You are talking about friendly fires during the 1991 Conflict. This was an M1A1Abrams that got hit by another Abrams. There was no enemy fires that was able to penetrate the Armor all the way through. Yes off course a lot of Abrams were dissabled just like any other tanks. When the M1A2Abrams went to war there was no penetration all the way through the Armor and all the crew survived.
@quickzilver333 That is true, that no enemy shot has been able to penetrate the hull, of the M1A2. Mines and IED however have penetratated the floor of the tank, and was powerful enough to knock off the turret. But that just goes to show how powerful the tank is.
My original point was that the M1 has been penertrated before by a shot, it just takes the equivlance of an Abrams to kill an Abrams
@canadaloveswhiskey Well you can't do anything about the IED or Anti-tank mines. It will surely dissable or destroy any tank. The M1A3Abrams is coming out within 10yrs. with better armor, advance electronics, trophy defenssive system or similar to it, bigger main gun, more powerful and efficient engines. It's pretty much a diffrent Abrams.
@quickzilver333 2008 Iraq 1 Abrams M1A2 was lost from unknown projectile a none HEAT round pierced right side through crew cell and halfway into left side.It was not friendly fire.
@Talshet If it penetrated the crew compartment how come there were no casualties? A lot Abrams has been dissabled and destroyed by IEDs and Landmines. Any track vehicles including the Abrams can be dissabled by mines and IEDs. No Abrams crew has ever been lost due to enemy attack.
@quickzilver333 Wrong,during 1991 26 Feb. Norfolk line (Bumper B-66[17]TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD))from February to March 1xM1 tank crew member died from RPG Penetration in the hull,below the turret and 2 wounded. 15 Member wounded from February to March.
@quickzilver333 You are an idiot. I gave you all information wich are come from Wikipedia. just google M1 26 feb 1991. RPG has penetrated the hull below the turret.
Just google it and shut up trying to make other people beliving their lair.
@Talshet LOL! you got it from Wikipedia......LOL!!!! They are talking about the driver or the gunner that died due to RPG attack. Which is false! He died because of friendly fire from another Abrams. Nice try!
@quickzilver333 You such an idiot.The M1 was shot twice from another M1 without penetration without injuring one, but after that an RPG a weapon that wasnt belong to US penetrated and killed a tank crew member.And you fucking idiot Wikipedia is a good source for information about history.Much more relaible than your bullshit quotes by propaganda sources.
@canadaloveswhiskey I'm talking about the enemy encounters of Abrams vs Challenger II during the first and the second Gulf War. The Abrams has encountered twice or even three times as much enemy fires than the Challenger II.
@Awesomeduud The USA Abrams Armor has never been penetrated all the way through the crew compartment. It has been dissabled just like every other tanks but the crew survived. You like satistics! During the Chenchen war against the "RUSSIANS" their T-72 and T-80 was pulvorized by the Chechen rebels using RPGs and anti tank guns. The Armor has been penetrated all the way through the compartment. These are NON-EXPORT T-72 and T-80 with ERA.
@Awesomeduud A good statement but I should point out to you the soviets have been a little bit less than honest about the effectiveness of their war machines in the past. I find it hard to believe that they all of the sudden are telling the 'truth' now. I'm sure the T-90 is a much more improved tank but better than the abram?
@Awesomeduud Is American training, experience, doctrine, tactics, leadership, logistics, and ect better than the Russians? Your answer would be... in a word... yes. Hardware is only one advantage, it's the man/men using it that makes the difference.
you do realise that the american n russia armies have never been head to head so to say the americans are better is a fair call because of the success they have had agains T series tanks but you must know the russians strip the tanks of there optics and other advanced options but the russians have been known to be more ferice then american troops and plus this is a american show so ofcourse they will make the bad guys seem big n strong and the americans will win
actually the T-72 sucks ass, it was behind in technology and a bad tank, the soviets couldn't keep with technology since they were very poor nation and then went bankrupt too.
@Kamadeva01 of course not why shoudl they those nazi bastards killed 9 million people because of there religion and many more because they were protecting there home land
the americans stole from ze germans everything after WW2, from technology(tank,airplane,rocket expertise etc) to battlefield tactics and these ungrateful bastards have no nice things to say in their documentaries about german generals or the german army.
i've never seen a doc made to show their skillz as opposed to the all mighty US army which is invincible(except for a few wars here and there).
if you can notes the real video showing the Iraqi tanks damaged from above(which is mean airstrike) such as F111 or A10 or F15E, however M1A1 undeniable advanced tank compared with T72s,but M1A1success achieved by air support and satellites vision to detect sites of Iraqi tanks (or how to explain destroy and damages numbers of M1A1 in other battles ' south Iraq' ! ) even this video show the Iraqi army like sleepy boys ! without doubt the Iraqi army is very fierce in the battles ..
These restitutions mean a high degree of humbling US troops' opponents, also in dogfights these movies show how opponents are unable and pitiful...arrogance of the powerful
"...In few minutes, two Bradleys destroyed no less than 5 T-72s without any manoeuvre, no firebacks , no damage, no casualty?!
IRAQI TANKS SHOWN AS DECOYS EVEN AT CLOSE RANGE...AMERICANS WITH NO DAMAGE OR CASUALTIES (It's not an exercice , it's REAL BATTLE conditions in front of Elite Forces ) reality, surely not like that
@xDvsking666x dunno, im no tank expert but modern tanks generally have lighter mounted anti-infantry weapons. Naturally the crew themselves would have basic light assualt weapons if they have to abandon their vehicle in enemy territory.
Of course any American gladly tell you how many hundreds of Iraqi tanks destroyed it at a distance slightly less than 10 miles to the M1. Another thing is that the head of homing missiles sees the work of sparkling engine Abrams tank, even from outer space!
Outstanding to see just how much german ww2 armoured warfare influenced US`s use of armour . Even their attack formation imitates a Panzer Kiel . You can see Rommel`s , Guderian and Hoth`s touch on everything the US does in their usage of armour . Impressive .
hahhahahahaha do you really eating you think that this happened .... to 20-30 of T-72 could not destroy any of 8-9 shitty abrams ....................... bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm ecstatic that they mentioned Rommel. If Hitler was not in power during the time of WWII, Rommel would have easily advanced over American and British Powers. I hate to admit it as a proud American but Rommel was the greatest tactician of all time.
if Hitler was not in power Germany would have made peace with the allies. Rommel did not want war with USA and Britain and often begged hitler to make peace with them so they could focus on Russia. He wanted Hitler to negotiate with America and Britain cause he saw there was no way Germany could win against two enemies on two different fronts both with vastly superior mass production capabilities.
I must add i read Pollacks book, 'Arabs at War'. The chapter on the Gulf War mentions that not only were the T-72s out-gunned but the Iraqis rarely attempted to manouever and outflank the Coailtion forces.This is due to lack of strong NCO's and a lack of initiative in most Arab armies.
@abduljakol1985 That requires initiative and good NCO's. In Arab armies they encourage conformity not creativity, especially amongst the lower ranks. Most Arab armies rely on frontal assaults and fire power. Junior officers and NCO's in Arab armies are quite unreliable in most cases.
@kantalatino Do not underestimate the Legendary T-72 Tank. It was just outgunned, out classed, and out killed by the Abrams. The T-72 is a excellent tank, sadly it was designed and build to fight tank of the 1970'ies, The Abrams is a generation Younger, and has a whole differant lay-out?
@ThePanzerWarMachine ...I do know that...I am from croatia ..I fought along side M-84 in war and saw it in real action...am pretty much sure that some of that IraqT-72s or M-84s as we call it....where from our factory djuro djakovic ...where they where build...Can you confirm for me that fact??
@ThePanzerWarMachine yes but they those T-72s with a 125mm cannon could have disabled some abrams maybe not knock them out but sure as hell rock the hell out of the crew though if they were better prepared they simply werent prepared at all it wouldnt have been so lopsided if they had been ready for us
@ThePanzerWarMachine when saddam bought t72 from russia, he did it cheaply. the tanks were stripped of upgrades to make the price much lower. they removed thermal imaging. and targeting systems. big mistake. unfortunatly iraq was broke after war with iran.
@ThePanzerWarMachine You're half right. Poland was manufacturing it's own T-72 tanks along with buying them from Russia. But they were obviously downgraded monkey models.
Every US tank companies were learning how to shoot T72 for now...but now they begin to learn how to shoot Russian T90
HappiKarafuru 1 day ago
It´s wrong to say that Rommel was the man behind the tactial armor ware fear.
It was Henz Gudarian, no one else !!!!!!!!!!!
stabbeZX9R 2 days ago
laughed my ass off when the Iraqs crancked there tanks
SamuelVanH 5 days ago
Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot - Tracer
ooxcfhxoo 1 week ago
If Rommel was in command, he will said:"Forget the Abram, the Bradley will suffice, reserve the Abram for emergency backup, all Bradley and supply vehicle of Fuel & TOW AT missiles will do!"
And he will still win with little casualty, cause Iraqi High Command said: What the fuck, where are my Elite Guard??? They are in front of us already for fuck sake!!!!"
willychong8921 2 weeks ago
"And then I'm like oh' shit , where is Eagle troop ?"
baderfinger 2 weeks ago
Its like WW2 tanks versus WW1 tanks. Nothing too spectacular about the Gulf War tank battles. Easy win for the US.
Ravensteinzh 3 weeks ago
Thought Heinz Guderian invented bliztkrieg, not Rommel?
Haansson123 3 weeks ago
@Haansson123 The british invented blitzkrieg. The GErmans just implemented it ; and did it well.
popper504 3 weeks ago
ha ha ha, the Iraqis fooled the Americans big time ... There were no one in those tanks and there were no WMDs !!!! :P
MrBoon008 4 weeks ago
Wow. I didn't know armoured warfare is so complex.
kertaspaper94 1 month ago
Yeah suuuuure americans are like a fucking gods and none of them were hit suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuree
Spetsnazas 1 month ago
@Spetsnazas no about 23 tanks where lost but not to land mine.
gamenigeria 1 month ago
@Spetsnazas Yea man u are right, hate this USA propaganda bullshit. They were the masters that they destroyed over 1000 tanks and meanwhile USA only maybe lost 1 tank which was a mechanic failure.
90Boski 2 weeks ago
Holy crap!
USA armor rules.
the82spartans 1 month ago
@alegiunti80 screwed your name up again. LOL Sorry, my last comments were from my phone. Easy to hit the wrong button on the phone. At any rate, as I said, they were able to get off a few shots and unfortunately at least one connected. I suspect more Americans died from friendly fire than from the Iraqis. Thats war though. Amazingly few coalition forces were killed in desert storm though when you compare it to WW1, WW2 or Viet Nam.
namznej 1 month ago
@algiunti80 oops, put your name in wrong.
namznej 1 month ago
@alegiunti sure they did. Keep watching. They killed sergeant Moller. :(
namznej 1 month ago
the iraqis don't shot ever one shot
alegiunti80 1 month ago
I think the Iraqis would have been better off with German WW2 Tiger tanks.
namznej 1 month ago
@jrapcdaikari wow that is hilarious. Thank you for the laugh. :)
namznej 1 month ago
Iraqi soldier: This land mine will surely cripple their tanks!
Abrams Driver: *hits land mine* Oh My God, did we hit a goat?!
jrapcdaikari 1 month ago 38
@jrapcdaikari , that's a riot!
Chino56751 15 hours ago
Uranium shell....Holly shet!!...XD it small nuclear hit you in the eye..if you The tank commander of the Iraqi T72 and T54/55 XD
HappiKarafuru 1 month ago
It is amazing how Erwin Rommel was leading tanks so well ; when in ww1 he never touched a tank . All these men like Guderian never grew up with tanks . Heck , they usually had to make fake tanks just to practice because of the treaty that was imposed on em
popper504 1 month ago
Russia would have a hard tme fighting any war on forgein land out of Europe . they just do not have the trucks , planes, choppers to support logistics/ supplies/ and stuff on a huge scale. Hell United states has 12 air craft carriers the next closest country has 1. We have so many Planes , airports , truck carriers , huge navy, great logistics. BTW , this was not a battle ; this was a massacre
popper504 1 month ago
IT says that the rushing in tactic was developed by Rommel, i may be wrong, but german tanks stopped still in order to fire, the "rush" tactic was developed by the British cruiser tank commanders to fight like a ship "constantly moving" and trained the gunner to hit the target at full speed.
MitchofSmeg 1 month ago
is that M1A2 anti tank mine blower? LOL it doesnt even do any damage to the track?
quangluu96 1 month ago
@quangluu96 these are M1A1 ARBAMS not M1A2s
MLGLeGiT72 1 month ago
@MLGLeGiT72 ok, they look the same, just a few upgrades, but is that the mine sweeper?
quangluu96 1 month ago
@quangluu96 proboly* not
MLGLeGiT72 1 month ago
how about leopard2A6 vs Abram m1A2 let see how they gonna deal in that situation lol
30sectodeath 1 month ago
@30sectodeath That would be a real battle i would love to see ( with out any war of course lol) the playing feilds would be level!
nodmessenger 1 month ago
(Then) Cpt McMasters took a tank heavy combat team and destroyed an Iraqi armormed battalion...In detail.
They should name the next tank after that guy. The M-1A3 McMasters...
Waltham1892 1 month ago
@Waltham1892 actually the brabley is the m1-a3, but the m1-a4 could be the mcmasters
spudicous 1 month ago
@spudicous
The Bradley is the M-2...
Waltham1892 1 month ago
what thick comments this video has :P
teddybrawl 1 month ago
as shown in WW2 it is tactics and air superiority that win everything the germans had most of the best tanks and commanders but when the allies finally got their act together, gained air superiority and their commanders gained the needed experience they pretty much over ran the axis but have numbers is good too but just as seen in the 2nd gulf war the coalition forces were out numbered but had air superiority, tactics and experience but as said in basic army training "no 2 battles are the same"
Panzer05100 1 month ago
this is y i love being on the US side in a battle
xifumouse 2 months ago
ok, so let's stop that shittyT72 vs M1A1 dialog; these ppl say themselfs -main element of victory is surprise, speed and violence of the attack, technological edge (in 3rd place mind you); Americans would win even if you give them shittier tanks
evgenypetushkov 2 months ago
This video reminded me of pwning noobies in WOT...
mrx168 2 months ago
I just couldn't stop laughing when the guy looked at the enemy tanks and said "Aw shit, where's eagle troop?" with a smile. That was funny.
kuru72 2 months ago
2:25-2:30 God is on America's side!
iwasmuted4 2 months ago
the last guy is epic :D
thetonphi 2 months ago
"Ah, that must be enemy" LOL
WarJunkieAndExpert 2 months ago
Soviet t72s were better but thier gun still had problems penetrating the frontal armor, and the gun was the same. If the Russians were commanding the t72s the Americans would have lost those bradleys, and probably a couple of Abrams, but not as much as you guys seem to think. The good t72s still would have problems cuz of the optics
skloser1 2 months ago
one thing they forgot to say is the abramas is the only tank with a gyroscope (still is) in it. Also I -3 rommel ( no homo) because he was the best tank commander ever
madpigz777 2 months ago
@madpigz777 And by gyroscope you mean the gun stabilisation system so they can engage targets on the move well that isnt the only tank with as the the British Challenger 2 mbt has that and just about everything the same as the Abrams except the challenger has a rifled gun which is more acurate than the Abrams smoothbore - Greetings from England
94AggressiveInline 2 months ago
The Abram's turret is moving faster than usual.
Awesomeduud 3 months ago
ZOMG!!! an american film mentioned a German general!! :O
Awesomeduud 3 months ago
@Awesomeduud Rommel was one of the best general in WWII. Afrika Corp is the only German Army who was not put on trial for war crimes gained the admiration of both sides. Patton studied on Rommel's works, that's why americans has such admiration for Erwin
TheDeamon89 2 months ago
Did the enemy ever realize they needed to shoot the main gun if they wanted a kill?
namznej 3 months ago
those are export model t72s, striped down russian t72s, they had no chance in hell against m1a1s.
jangotrooper 3 months ago
dont see y these american are all that.....they were fighting un educated tank commanders, the tabks doesnt matter its the commanders that matter, i bet if they were versing soviet tank commanders in those t72s which were stripped to make them cheaper the americans would take heavy loses....im not say the americans suck so all u americans out there take no offence
CCCP307 3 months ago
@CCCP307 True, very true. People say T72s suck because of what happened in Iraq. They don't realize they were the shitty version. Let's see America take on Russia and get the same results. I assure, they'll be bitching about their losses.
Awesomeduud 3 months ago
@Awesomeduud yea truth is the iraqis didnt know how to use the tanks
CCCP307 3 months ago
@Awesomeduud yeah those fuckin T-72M.
CrazyGamerFromBrazil 2 months ago
For those interested in this battle, go read "Warrior's Rage: the great tank battle of 73 easting" by Douglas Macgregor. It's his account of this battle (in more detail that he gives here) and without the History Channel's simple-minded cheesiness.
NikkeinJapan 4 months ago
damn, those Iraqi tank can't shoot fot SHIT! >''<
easterndragon9x 4 months ago
us and its allies always impose sanction to a country before they invade till their morality is weaken, in addition they never go to war alone n force alliance nation to join
almaskari2008 4 months ago
1:55 PanzerKile right out of Rommels playbook. Good tactic though. Yes i know the 7th corp based the way they fight off of Rommel
ethanreipold88 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5:32.... i didnt know the Scottish were in the abrhams???? lol
Pringles352 4 months ago
Comment removed
Pringles352 4 months ago
Comment removed
Pringles352 4 months ago
Comment removed
Pringles352 4 months ago
"sir what the hell was that?" lol
jnevins1234 4 months ago
go into area. shoot everything that moves. repeat
jnevins1234 4 months ago
4-7 CAV on your left flank, Ghost Troop!
screenwriter44 4 months ago 4
Too bad DICE nerfed the abrams tank for bf3, otherwise the USMC team would always win
BlueHawkPictures17 4 months ago in playlist The Battle Of 73 Easting
@BlueHawkPictures17 so true.
SpywareHater 3 months ago
@BlueHawkPictures17 The Russian T-90 is a powerful tank. No one knows who will win. Now if you are a "patriotic" american who thinks america always win then abrams would win. Now if you look at statistics or results and there's none, then your answer would be, "I dunno"
Awesomeduud 3 months ago 17
@Awesomeduud I'm russian
BlueHawkPictures17 3 months ago
@BlueHawkPictures17 I'm sorry. The "you" in my comment was in general. :)
Awesomeduud 3 months ago
@Awesomeduud just saying :D
BlueHawkPictures17 3 months ago
@Awesomeduud i think youre cuite right, if i had ha choise i coose the m1a2 tusk cause it has beter optics and target acqusison so the chanse is that you see the t90 first and respond and since the heavyer armor of the t90 dont cover the hwole front aspect of the tank you might get lucky XD. so i think this goes under The "i dunno" awnser
panzerstrelok 2 months ago
@Awesomeduud Haha, I consider myself a patriotic american, and I understand that technology is core, but that it all eventually falls on crew training.
Th3Nigma 2 months ago
@Awesomeduud I myself agree the T-90 is slightly stronger than the Abrams although the abram's armor is thicker
YapLee1314 2 months ago
@YapLee1314 The Abrams armor has never been penetrated all the way through the crew compartment. It has been damaged and dissabled by IED, RPGs, mines and anti-tank weapons. Compare that to the Russian made T-72 and T-80 during their ecounter with the Chechen rebels. Mind you that these are not Export model T-72 and T-80. The Chenchen rebels are slicing through there armor all the way through the crew compartment like butter.
quickzilver333 2 months ago
@quickzilver333 not true. During the Gulf War 23 Abrams were disabled, five suffered penatrating hits, and five were out right destroyed. The new upgraded Abrams have yet to have anti-tank guided weaponary fired at them, but abbondoned tanks have been destroyed by missile strikes. Compare this too the British Challenger 2 that has yet to loose a single tank to enemy fire.
canadaloveswhiskey 1 month ago
@canadaloveswhiskey Please read my comments carefully. I never said the Abrams has never been dissabled or penetrated. I said the Abrams Armor hasn't been penetrated "ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE CREW COMPARTMENT". The Abrams crew survived. Any tank can be dissabled by Mines, IED, RPGs, Anti-tank missiles etc.. etc.. The British Challenger 2 has been dissabled by enemy fire. The crew survived just like the Abrams.
quickzilver333 1 month ago
@quickzilver333 Again not true. There have been numerous causilties including one killed due to penetrating hits, the KIA was the loader sitting in the turret.
Also Anti-Tank missiles destroy targets by penetrating armour, not just through explosive power.
canadaloveswhiskey 1 month ago
@canadaloveswhiskey You are full of crap! The British Chanllenger II have been damage and disabled by enemy fire in Iraq. The Abrams encountered most of the Iraqi Armored units and attacks by RPGs and anti-tanks missiles. There is not a single crew that was killed on the Abrams. The Challenger II hardly see combat in Iraq compared that to the Abrams ecounters against the Iraqi Armored Division.
quickzilver333 1 month ago
According to the Army’s Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, 23 Abrams tanks were destroyed or damaged in the Persian Gulf area. Of the nine Abrams destroyed, seven were due to friendly fire, and two were intentionally destroyed to prevent capture after they became disabled. Other Abrams tanks were damaged by enemy fire, land mines, on-board fires, or to prevent capture after they became disabled." From Early performance assessment of Bradleys and Abrams, p. 24.
canadaloveswhiskey 1 month ago
@quickzilver333 As stated above, in one egagement at the Norfolk line, an Abram tank was hit by an RPG and three depleted urianium rounds penetrated the turret, killing the loader as well as two other wounded. Only one Challanger 2 has been lost, to freindly fire, and two damaged. You are also incorrect in saying that the Challenger 2 has not seen extensive service which it has during the seige of Basra, as well as other ground operations.
canadaloveswhiskey 1 month ago
@canadaloveswhiskey LOL! You are an idiot. The Abrams has seen more battles than the Challenger II. Any tank can be dissabled. The important thing is the crew survival. You are just making up shit about the Abrams loader that got killed. The Abrams has seen more tank to tank battle plus RPG and anti-tank missiles attack than the Challenger II and thats a Fact. The Abrams is also present in Afghanistan and The Challenger II is absent...LOL!
quickzilver333 1 month ago
@quickzilver333 Of course the Abrams have seen more action, thye've been around since the 1980's, Fifteen years longer! What I was saying is that you good sir, are wrong in the fact that the Abrams have never been penetrated. How do you you think men have been wounded while inside the tank?
canadaloveswhiskey 1 month ago
@quickzilver333 That does not mean that the M1 is NOT a great tank. Obviously it is, since it has been around for the 29 years it has been in service, and you are right in that its armour and safty gear has no doubt saved the lives of many of the crews who have served in them. But you are denying facts! Look up the M1's history in the first Gulf and you will see that the tank is not as invincible as you are making it out to be.
canadaloveswhiskey 1 month ago
@quickzilver333 Now I must admit that I was mistaken. In the Battle of Norfolk, it was not the loader who was killed, he was one of the WIAs, the gunner was the one who was killed, when his tank, Bumber B-66 of the 2nd Armoured Division was hit by three DU rounds from another Abrams, one of which penetrated below the turret, after being hit by an RPG, killing him and wounding two others.
canadaloveswhiskey 1 month ago
@canadaloveswhiskey You are talking about friendly fires during the 1991 Conflict. This was an M1A1Abrams that got hit by another Abrams. There was no enemy fires that was able to penetrate the Armor all the way through. Yes off course a lot of Abrams were dissabled just like any other tanks. When the M1A2Abrams went to war there was no penetration all the way through the Armor and all the crew survived.
quickzilver333 1 month ago
@quickzilver333 That is true, that no enemy shot has been able to penetrate the hull, of the M1A2. Mines and IED however have penetratated the floor of the tank, and was powerful enough to knock off the turret. But that just goes to show how powerful the tank is.
My original point was that the M1 has been penertrated before by a shot, it just takes the equivlance of an Abrams to kill an Abrams
canadaloveswhiskey 1 month ago
@canadaloveswhiskey Well you can't do anything about the IED or Anti-tank mines. It will surely dissable or destroy any tank. The M1A3Abrams is coming out within 10yrs. with better armor, advance electronics, trophy defenssive system or similar to it, bigger main gun, more powerful and efficient engines. It's pretty much a diffrent Abrams.
quickzilver333 1 month ago
@quickzilver333 2008 Iraq 1 Abrams M1A2 was lost from unknown projectile a none HEAT round pierced right side through crew cell and halfway into left side.It was not friendly fire.
Talshet 1 month ago
@Talshet If it penetrated the crew compartment how come there were no casualties? A lot Abrams has been dissabled and destroyed by IEDs and Landmines. Any track vehicles including the Abrams can be dissabled by mines and IEDs. No Abrams crew has ever been lost due to enemy attack.
quickzilver333 1 month ago
@quickzilver333 Wrong,during 1991 26 Feb. Norfolk line (Bumper B-66[17]TF 1-41, 2nd Armored Division(FWD))from February to March 1xM1 tank crew member died from RPG Penetration in the hull,below the turret and 2 wounded. 15 Member wounded from February to March.
Talshet 1 month ago
@Talshet LOL! Nope the only Abrams crew member that died from attack came from a friendly fire. Nice try!
quickzilver333 1 month ago
@quickzilver333 You are an idiot. I gave you all information wich are come from Wikipedia. just google M1 26 feb 1991. RPG has penetrated the hull below the turret.
Just google it and shut up trying to make other people beliving their lair.
Talshet 1 month ago
@Talshet LOL! you got it from Wikipedia......LOL!!!! They are talking about the driver or the gunner that died due to RPG attack. Which is false! He died because of friendly fire from another Abrams. Nice try!
quickzilver333 1 month ago
@quickzilver333 You such an idiot.The M1 was shot twice from another M1 without penetration without injuring one, but after that an RPG a weapon that wasnt belong to US penetrated and killed a tank crew member.And you fucking idiot Wikipedia is a good source for information about history.Much more relaible than your bullshit quotes by propaganda sources.
Talshet 1 month ago
@canadaloveswhiskey I'm talking about the enemy encounters of Abrams vs Challenger II during the first and the second Gulf War. The Abrams has encountered twice or even three times as much enemy fires than the Challenger II.
quickzilver333 1 month ago
@Awesomeduud The USA Abrams Armor has never been penetrated all the way through the crew compartment. It has been dissabled just like every other tanks but the crew survived. You like satistics! During the Chenchen war against the "RUSSIANS" their T-72 and T-80 was pulvorized by the Chechen rebels using RPGs and anti tank guns. The Armor has been penetrated all the way through the compartment. These are NON-EXPORT T-72 and T-80 with ERA.
quickzilver333 2 months ago
@Awesomeduud A good statement but I should point out to you the soviets have been a little bit less than honest about the effectiveness of their war machines in the past. I find it hard to believe that they all of the sudden are telling the 'truth' now. I'm sure the T-90 is a much more improved tank but better than the abram?
Dbusdriver71 1 month ago
@Awesomeduud Is American training, experience, doctrine, tactics, leadership, logistics, and ect better than the Russians? Your answer would be... in a word... yes. Hardware is only one advantage, it's the man/men using it that makes the difference.
downloadgoblin 1 month ago 15
@downloadgoblin
you do realise that the american n russia armies have never been head to head so to say the americans are better is a fair call because of the success they have had agains T series tanks but you must know the russians strip the tanks of there optics and other advanced options but the russians have been known to be more ferice then american troops and plus this is a american show so ofcourse they will make the bad guys seem big n strong and the americans will win
Panzer05100 1 week ago
@Panzer05100 Russian and u.s forces have actualy been head to head. Perhaps on on the ground but during the Vietnam war they flew against eachother.
Antifaith29 1 day ago
actually the T-72 sucks ass, it was behind in technology and a bad tank, the soviets couldn't keep with technology since they were very poor nation and then went bankrupt too.
sociopath79 5 months ago
dude.. t-72's are definitely no match for the M-1... even with all the fancy upgrades..
1322blood 5 months ago
@Kamadeva01 of course not why shoudl they those nazi bastards killed 9 million people because of there religion and many more because they were protecting there home land
raidersfootball20 5 months ago
"Knocked me down to the turd floor."--tank personnel are very earthy.
fishmanMarch61 5 months ago
the americans stole from ze germans everything after WW2, from technology(tank,airplane,rocket expertise etc) to battlefield tactics and these ungrateful bastards have no nice things to say in their documentaries about german generals or the german army.
i've never seen a doc made to show their skillz as opposed to the all mighty US army which is invincible(except for a few wars here and there).
Kamadeva01 5 months ago
if you can notes the real video showing the Iraqi tanks damaged from above(which is mean airstrike) such as F111 or A10 or F15E, however M1A1 undeniable advanced tank compared with T72s,but M1A1success achieved by air support and satellites vision to detect sites of Iraqi tanks (or how to explain destroy and damages numbers of M1A1 in other battles ' south Iraq' ! ) even this video show the Iraqi army like sleepy boys ! without doubt the Iraqi army is very fierce in the battles ..
GhostHawk76 5 months ago
its only a ten year difference
Blueatchley12 5 months ago
This video is stupid It actually makes a broke Irak as a strong enemy haha what a joke
jezza1789 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These restitutions mean a high degree of humbling US troops' opponents, also in dogfights these movies show how opponents are unable and pitiful...arrogance of the powerful
"...In few minutes, two Bradleys destroyed no less than 5 T-72s without any manoeuvre, no firebacks , no damage, no casualty?!
IRAQI TANKS SHOWN AS DECOYS EVEN AT CLOSE RANGE...AMERICANS WITH NO DAMAGE OR CASUALTIES (It's not an exercice , it's REAL BATTLE conditions in front of Elite Forces ) reality, surely not like that
66chokri 6 months ago
this is LOL battle! i mean its kinda funny...
AnimeGod1995 6 months ago
So Heat and sabot's are both for armor penetration ?
dardo1201 6 months ago
Listen to these ass hole,fuck you americans,your 50 years of buling the week will end very soon...
SuperNjak 6 months ago
@SuperNjak Not if they nuke you first.
xDvsking666x 5 months ago
@SuperNjak Ya and your country's bullying of ethnic races for over a 100 years is still happening.
jesballboy 2 months ago
Challenger 2 is better
nakedfrog 7 months ago
@nakedfrog Has it been in Tank to tank battle?
xDvsking666x 5 months ago
@xDvsking666x id say taking 70 RPGs in one go and taking no major damage is good enough
nakedfrog 5 months ago
Rommel rulez
TheDeamon89 7 months ago 25
@TheDeamon89 sooooooooo,us tanks defeat rommel 48 years before then they use hteir enemy's tactics lol
CrazyGamerFromBrazil 2 months ago
@TheDeamon89
Genau;-) Grüße aus Deutschland
MyScheissname 2 months ago
the turret stabilizer is the best. driving and firing makes for great defensive and offensive tactics at the same time.
108Dax 7 months ago
@108Dax Do the crewman have weapons?
xDvsking666x 5 months ago
@xDvsking666x dunno, im no tank expert but modern tanks generally have lighter mounted anti-infantry weapons. Naturally the crew themselves would have basic light assualt weapons if they have to abandon their vehicle in enemy territory.
108Dax 5 months ago
@108Dax That would suck if they had to then again I'd probably try to go hijack a enemy vehicle afterwords
xDvsking666x 5 months ago
@xDvsking666x I think being able to get out alive is better then having a direct hit and everyone in the tanks
becomes a mix of molten metal and meat.
108Dax 5 months ago
@108Dax true
xDvsking666x 5 months ago
Gangsters in California think their gangster, this is real gangster stuff
eli23kb 7 months ago
hm, i noticed that some of the abrams are m1a2's in 1991? :P
everythingman987 7 months ago
hate the way he says saddam
williewonka37 8 months ago
The iraquis would have had better odds riding camels.
ElephantRage 8 months ago
that guy at 5:00 has a great personality for a tank commander LOL
chronic24 8 months ago
i watch the other documentary of this... other american and british died ecause of friendly fire
ericsantiago011 9 months ago
Abrams steamrolled enemy tanks.
izvarzone 9 months ago
awesome thanks for the upload!
mossmusic 9 months ago
@6:55 I believe it was Panzer General Heinz Guderian who first developed that tactic in Poland. Rommel was the one who perfected it.
You hit somebody with your fist and not with your fingers spread - Heinz Guderian
The concept of "Blitzkrieg"
DreadedPantherTank 9 months ago
Of course any American gladly tell you how many hundreds of Iraqi tanks destroyed it at a distance slightly less than 10 miles to the M1. Another thing is that the head of homing missiles sees the work of sparkling engine Abrams tank, even from outer space!
Imprudentman 10 months ago
Comment removed
Imprudentman 10 months ago
During the first Gulf War, the Bradley IFVs killed more enemy armour than the Abrams. Gotta love the ATGM.
soundslave 10 months ago
+ 1 sub
tucker1012 10 months ago
Outstanding to see just how much german ww2 armoured warfare influenced US`s use of armour . Even their attack formation imitates a Panzer Kiel . You can see Rommel`s , Guderian and Hoth`s touch on everything the US does in their usage of armour . Impressive .
Cosmin1511 10 months ago
hahhahahahaha do you really eating you think that this happened .... to 20-30 of T-72 could not destroy any of 8-9 shitty abrams ....................... bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!
RepublikaSrpska1989 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RepublikaSrpska1989 Well, that just shows how ignorant you are of military vehicles and their capabilities.
gearbox011 11 months ago
Manual traverse vs. Gun stabilization, hmmm,
Is it possible to even traverse the turret by hand
fast enough on targets going this fast, this close?
TheLastSaneManLeft 11 months ago
I am very impressed by the animation in this series! Thanks for posting!
thunderlock110 11 months ago
They are both tanks, and both shoot similar rounds, therefore they are good enemies. any one could be killed in this battle, SABOT FOR LIFE>
OutlawAirsoftPA 11 months ago
I'm ecstatic that they mentioned Rommel. If Hitler was not in power during the time of WWII, Rommel would have easily advanced over American and British Powers. I hate to admit it as a proud American but Rommel was the greatest tactician of all time.
Love2Scissor 11 months ago
@Love2Scissor
if Hitler was not in power Germany would have made peace with the allies. Rommel did not want war with USA and Britain and often begged hitler to make peace with them so they could focus on Russia. He wanted Hitler to negotiate with America and Britain cause he saw there was no way Germany could win against two enemies on two different fronts both with vastly superior mass production capabilities.
TheProjektcc 11 months ago 2
Oh hello the good ol' "Panzerkiel" from the Battle of Kursk. =) Best Regards from Germany ;-)
TTiger75 11 months ago
I must add i read Pollacks book, 'Arabs at War'. The chapter on the Gulf War mentions that not only were the T-72s out-gunned but the Iraqis rarely attempted to manouever and outflank the Coailtion forces.This is due to lack of strong NCO's and a lack of initiative in most Arab armies.
EL20078 1 year ago
Leveled that command post to rubble, huuraaa
Tomboy137 1 year ago
The iraqi armored troops were just let them selves a target by making themselves stationary, they should had move, trying to out flank the US..
abduljakol1985 1 year ago
@abduljakol1985 That requires initiative and good NCO's. In Arab armies they encourage conformity not creativity, especially amongst the lower ranks. Most Arab armies rely on frontal assaults and fire power. Junior officers and NCO's in Arab armies are quite unreliable in most cases.
EL20078 1 year ago
So Funny ! Whay Iraqis never fire a single round ?
MrRajan11222533 1 year ago
this was not a battle....abrams against t-72 means slaughter like in video game...
kantalatino 1 year ago 35
@kantalatino Do not underestimate the Legendary T-72 Tank. It was just outgunned, out classed, and out killed by the Abrams. The T-72 is a excellent tank, sadly it was designed and build to fight tank of the 1970'ies, The Abrams is a generation Younger, and has a whole differant lay-out?
ThePanzerWarMachine 1 year ago 38
@ThePanzerWarMachine ...I do know that...I am from croatia ..I fought along side M-84 in war and saw it in real action...am pretty much sure that some of that IraqT-72s or M-84s as we call it....where from our factory djuro djakovic ...where they where build...Can you confirm for me that fact??
I know that lots of them were exported to Kuwait
...best regards from ww2 ally :)
kantalatino 1 year ago
@kantalatino yes u r right some were from your factory in croatia but most of the T-72s were from poland second hand
jojo51886 1 year ago
@ThePanzerWarMachine yes but they those T-72s with a 125mm cannon could have disabled some abrams maybe not knock them out but sure as hell rock the hell out of the crew though if they were better prepared they simply werent prepared at all it wouldnt have been so lopsided if they had been ready for us
jojo51886 1 year ago
@ThePanzerWarMachine Don't forget the M60 Patton that was made 30 years earlier fought against the Iraqi armor.
Revelat0r 11 months ago
@ThePanzerWarMachine I agree, the T-72 is a great tank, but nothing like the M1A2.,
OutlawAirsoftPA 11 months ago
@ThePanzerWarMachine yea that's true, t-72 is nothing comparing to abrams. t-90 and abrams will be fair.
hayder464 11 months ago
@ThePanzerWarMachine
well then that comes back to what kantalatino said , a slaughter...
Kolashov 10 months ago
@ThePanzerWarMachine when saddam bought t72 from russia, he did it cheaply. the tanks were stripped of upgrades to make the price much lower. they removed thermal imaging. and targeting systems. big mistake. unfortunatly iraq was broke after war with iran.
rmiley38 10 months ago 20
@rmiley38
Saddam diden't baught tanks from Russia, but from Poland who baught them From Russia.
read my other comments for more info.
ThePanzerWarMachine 10 months ago 16
@ThePanzerWarMachine You're half right. Poland was manufacturing it's own T-72 tanks along with buying them from Russia. But they were obviously downgraded monkey models.
darkon112 10 months ago