@supramanz there is a reason why its called depleted uranium and your right about the rounds the m3 bradley IFV but the reason it is depleted uranium is it is the most dense material known to man and it has given off all of its radiation it has lived passed its atomic half life
@patsfanczar And by the way.. I know you americans are used to believing that you are the best at everything (even if all statistics show the exact opposite) but nothing could be further from the truth.. the Abrams is definetely NOT the number one tank of this time, hell, I would even argue that it doesn't even belong in the top ten!
How can the Leopard 2 not be on this list? Seriously..
CHALLENGER 2 is the worlds best, well it could take out an M1A2 Abrams easy. america just has more. I think the German Leopard is better than the Abrams too
the Merkava 4 has Armoured Shield Protection that protects it from RPG's and Anti-tank missiles that makes it the safest tank in the world and the has a special missles named APPAM the tank has an heat guided missiles/rockets and even machine guns. the driver has a 3D map that helps the driver to drive in night the device itself has a special view that can identfy mines!!!!
The Leopard 2A5/6/7 is the bast all around tank today. The Leo2A4 and preceeding variants has the vertical turret armour which was a drawback.
The M1 has a good record on it's combat performance (Excellent armour, powerful german gun etc...) but most of it's record is against outdated and poorly manufactured Russian tanks. And it's Achilles Heel is it's engine. Biggest gas-guzzler on the planet, despite having a lerger fuel tank than most MBTs it has comparable range (logistics nightmare).
@icantafford decent points, but, for one, the Leo has no combat record at all, and there are no decent tanks today which have faced something other than outdated Russian tanks (if they have fought tanks at all!). For two, while tubine engines such as that on the Abrams are gas guzzlers, the logistics are eased by the fact that they can take any liquid fuel you can find. Furthermore, turbines have the best power to weight ratio, making the Abrams more agile.
@patsfanczar [shrug] the engine is slightly larger in the Leo2 (smaller fuel tank, yet it still has a slightly longer range) giving it equal cross country capability. The logistics may be eased by the M1's acceptance of fuel, yet most military vehicles use Diesel anyway, making logistics still easier for the Leo2 by the fact that they dont need anywhere near as much fuel to operate for the same amount of time and distance as the M1. The new Leo2's have the L55 main cannon as well, M1 is an L44
@icantafford The great advantage of the fuel flexibility is really that the abrams doesn't even necessarily need a supply line, as long as fuel it captured. As far as the gun issue: l55 is far to long, l44 has plenty adequate range, accuracy, and velocity, but has better maneuverability than the l55.
wtf? where is the leopard 2a7+ or Leopard 2a6m ? and by the way the merkava isnt the safest tank in the world you just have to take a look at the leopard 2a4 evolution THIS is the safest tank in the world !! the merkava looks like he has no armor on the side...
@ModernGermanWarfare Looks like and has are two different things. Merkava's have a field record to back their claims of safety, the leopard has never shot at another tank, though it still has 3 casualties in it. The armor is like tissue. At any rate, the Merkava has many features specifically for safety, including a frontal engine and a lower escape door.
I'm curious as to why you did not include the latest model of the German Leopard on your list? In my opinion, it as well as the British Challenger and the US Abrams are pretty much the top three tanks in the world. I would find it difficult to rank one over the other.
@stalliman Wow, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Area you aware that "L44" means that the length of the barrel is 44 times the caliber, and "L55" means it is 55 times the caliber? Both tanks have the 120mm gun, and shoot the exact same NATO standard round. Now, as I said, the added range is negligible and virtually useless on a tank. "You can hit them before they hit you" hasn't been an issue ever, since all tanks can lob a projectile farther than you can see.
As I said before, range is not an issue. Longer barrels merely add velocity to the round, which is pointless when in the area that 90% of all combat takes place: the city. Longer barrels do, however, impair maneuverability, limiting where the tank can go.
@patsfanczar read some informations about the l44 and l55. also about the leopard 2a6. when you dont do it not my problem but what you write isnt true. look at the iraq war the fights with tanks were to 95% in the desert and not in a city. and to come back to our point the leopard 2a6 is better than that thing from sweden, leclerc and merkava.
@stalliman Not at all, actually. There was no fighting whatsoever in the desert. Using the blitz tactic, it was really only a short time with little fighting (except a small amount of resistance in CITIES) to get to Baghdad. Post something moderately educated next time or I'm going to ban you for stupidity. And pay a little more attention in English class, will you, I'm having trouble reading your comments.
@patsfanczar ok but come back to the point the leopard is better. and when you dont accept that i cant help you. i´ve seen a documentation about tanks and there were some modern warfare specialists from all over the world and they all said that leopard is the best tank of the world. there was a us soldier from the armored forces who said "the m1a2 is in comparison to European counterparts a heap of Shit."
@patsfanczar well you haven't got a clue, the difference in the length is about 4 and a half feet and you think this is going to make a difference in traverse effectiveness. Nowhere is a tank going to be where it can't traverse a turret. The S tank has to pirhouette to turn it's gun, in which case why is it on your list?
@14th20thKRHkickass I believe you need to look at the fact that the Stridsvagn is a defensive tank made to defend the Swedish countryside, and all of its features work very well to that.
This guy puts all this time into making this vid and totally blows it by overlaying the shitty text without a solid background which makes it completely fucking illegible. Pointless. Genius.
@dong776 Lay off, it was my first vid. More of me seeing what I could do in a video than anything else. I would re-do it, but I don't think I even have the project anymore and it isn't worth the time to completely re-do.
@patsfanczar yes its the oldest. and thats the point they have more expirence than all the others with that tank. they made it better and better because over all the time they saw all the problems it has and learned out of that.
@stalliman Its still the same tank, and it still has all the problems it had originally (and the platform is aging). Tanks don't have all these problems just fixed with updates, you need a new tank to do that. Additionally, the crews of the leopard are especially green because the thing hasn't ever been used in combat.
@patsfanczar nope the tank was used from the german military in kosovo and from kanada and denmark in afghanistan. nope they fixed the problems with updates. the newest tank hasnt the same problems who the oldest had. when you think that they has the same problems tell me the problems .
@stalliman What problems have they fixed? It still has a gun to damn long, an unreliable piston engine, and it still has armor that fits well in comparison with tissue paper. Furthermore, rolling along a dirt road in Afghanistan on patrols does not constitute combat, and the leopard has NEVER seen combat.
(P.S. learn to spell, learn to use proper grammar, and learn to capitalize right).
@patsfanczar im from germany and my english isnt very good. he seen a combat the kosovo. talk to military specialists they all say the leo is better than leclerc merkava and that thing from sweden. tha m1a2 has the same canon than the leo and the leo had the canon first. since the first leo the leo is in shooting the best of all western tanks. he can drive through rivers and lakes. have you seen the new leopard ? the leopard 2a7+/2 PSO ???
@patsfanczar yes they have an l55 canon from rheinmetall. the l55 is not only longer the canon has a higher range. the leo 2a4 and 2a5 dont have the l55. they have the l44. the 2a6 has the l55.
look at the leo 2a7+/2pso he has also the l55 but the canon is shorter than the original l55 .
@stalliman The range that the l55 has over the l44 is negligible if it even exists at all. Furthermore, tanks NEVER engage in combat at ranges farther than the l44 can handle anyways. Tanks are not field artillery, if you want to hit shit from ridiculously long ranges, get a self-propelled gun. Anyways, most combat happens in and around cities (derp) which does not demand range, but maneuverability.
And you do realize that "l44" is denomination for gun length, right?
Yes, there have been injuries in Afghanistan by IED, but not any serious:
The incident wasn't serious enough to disable the tank, and the convoy pushed through the ambush to Patrol Base Wilson, Nethercott said. The injured soldiers were evacuated by helicopter to the multinational hospital at Kandahar Air Field.
They are expected to return to active duty.
On Monday, another Leopard tank was struck by an anti-tank mine en route to a police checkpoint. There were no injuries.
@1337Mo Did you read my comment correctly? 3 people have died in L2 tanks. Not just injury, death. And none of it was in real combat. The 3rd gen composite of the L2 is a joke, considering I could cut through it with a simple homemade bomb. Furthermore, there is nothing about the leo that tells me it could stand up against these 5 tanks. Crew combat experience is green, the engine is unreliable, the gun is to long, the number is to few...
@67Molinari The L2 sucks because it has a very poor service record, and it has 3 deaths without any combat experience (homemade bombs in Afghanistan, what a joke). They are few in the countries that use them, and the gun is clumsy long.
@mingofilaz And where would you be finding these reports? How about the fact that the leo2 has 3 deaths on it without even seeing real combat, or the fact that the leo2 in most countries that run it have extremely poor repair records?
@SLiDaRr They rambo machine guns and get drunk on base, I think you need to find out a little and quit standing in awe of stupidity (retard). Quit posting stupidity on my videos or I will block you.
@ChicoRiono What military statistics do you have to back up you claim to their strength? Training is inferior in all these countries (germans get drunk on base and machine gun rambo-style, and I have never heard anything great canada has done militarily, and belgium has always been run over), and their military strategy is to get the president of the United States on the phone if they get attacked.
dude there 4 type of merkava to mk1 &2 there 105mm gun and 900hp to mk3 there 120mm gun and 1200hp weight 70000kg to mk4 there 120mm gun and 1500hp and he weight 80000kg.
each one of then equip with 3 7.62 cal gun and 0.5 inch gun
@purim2009 Yes... There are also several types of abrams (M1, M1A1, M1A2, M1A2SEP). I am not going to revise the video and put in statistics for every production variant of the tanks on this list, I haven't got the time nor the purpose to do that, if that is what you want.
hehe, old timer M1 abrams on top of the list? That's definitely YOUR opinion ;-)
i don't think combat data is that meaningful for any of these tanks; afterall, none of them have known big, real tank warfare like in WW2, don't you think?
Quite a good vid' anyway, but the text could be easier to read...
@patsfanczar Yes, and i wasn't thinking about these. On your list, M1 is not the toughest, nor the best mobility. It doesn't have the best firing efficiency, and it is often said the gas turbine was a mistake (consumsion and thermal signature). So i wouldn't have put it in first place (but this is only my opinion ;-) ).
More on the turbine engine is that it is FAR simpler than a piston engine, giving it a FAR better repair record. As far as Firing efficiency, I'm not quite sure what you are talking about, as its R.O.F. is as good as any other tank on earth and the accuracy of the firing computer, gun, and crew are second to NONE. As I have stated, fuel flexibility gives it GREAT long range mobility, and speed and maneuverability are AMAZING given that we are talking about a tank.
@patsfanczar Yes turbines have some advantages. It also allows better accelerations than most diesels. But it seems to me that an important thermal signature compared to diesel tanks with cooled exhaust is a serious issue. Not much of a problem against outdated Iraqi tanks, but what if M1 has to fight against modern tank-killers someday?
Now, i'm no tank expert; the little i know is from what i read here and there :) but for what i've read so far, the commander2 heavier rifled cannon -->
@bidon3332000 If you look at any tank, it is entirely visible (cooled piston or not) on thermal; thermal is a far overblown issue. All engines create a LOT of heat (and not just from exhaust, the engine itself is just as hot or hotter in a piston as in a turbine). If you are getting this information from the military channel's lists, don't listen, because they are all poorly researched retards there.
what you say makes sense. But if thermal signature isn't an issue, why do engineers choose anti-heat device such as cooled exhaust and IR grenades to put on their MBTs? Is it just to sell technologies (as it happens for 5th gen fighter aircrafts btw)?
@bidon3332000 You are correct. They are designed, after all, by private corporations who have to sell a product, and the more technological frills, the generally more impressed. Cooled exhaust may hide the giant white cloud on your enemy's grayscale IR, but all engines give off lots of heat, and it is ultimately in vain to hide that.
@patsfanczar --> gives it more stopping power. The Leclerc too has a bigger cannon, which gives better power and range of fire (20% acc. to Wikipedia). It also have more sophisticated aiming computer which makes it (again, for what i've read) the only tank able to kill fast moving vehicles while moving at top speed on any terrain, where other tanks would have to slow down to achieve it. And it's also more mobile than M1 ;) IMO,M1 is a good tank getting older.Not sure it still deserves 1st place.
@bidon3332000 The Leclerc is a decent tank, yes (that is why it is on this list), but the only people who know how to operate that tank have no combat experience. The firing control computer has been derived off that from the M1 (which also has the capacity to fire at relatively distant targets while on the move). The guns on nearly all NATO tanks fire 120mm rounds. The difference is mostly in length and in the presence of rifling >>>
@patsfanczar you have a point here ;) but what do you mean with "a gun to long seriously reduces urban effectiveness"?
Anyway, MBTs are vulnerable in urban environment, despite all their self-protection device. Tanks are built to go on open battlefields, where rounds can fly :)
@bidon3332000 Longer guns on tanks make it harder to turn the turret and the tank in tight spaces (the L55 on the leo2 hangs WAY over the edge of the base). Combat does not happen in open areas, it happens in urban areas where there is something to fight over. Tanks need to be (and the abrams is) effective in an urban environment, not open worthlessness. As I said, PISTON (not diesel, as the turbine in the abrams is diesel) engines still create enough heat to be seen.
@APRichelieu Not really. Most rounds don't use speed to penetrate, anyway (muzzle velocity being an issue is somewhat a thing of the past for tanks). What anti-tank rounds use is something called a shape-charge, which uses a charge with a cone cut out of the front to create a jet of molten metal (scientifically proven). This jet is what penetrates and kills, which is what tank armor design has centered around for over a half-century, and it voids muzzle velocity.
My apologies to be any more blunt, but to say that "tanks don't belong in cities" is extremely naive, and is also saying that tanks are outdated, as combat doesn't happen in the countryside, it happens in at least a respectably sized town. Combat happens in cities (there is a reason nearly all battles are named for a local TOWN or CITY). Additionally, the s-tank may be closer to "tank destroyer," but everywhere you look it is called a TANK (and fit into the Swedish military as such).
To debunk your "many militaries use the leo2" theory, You must realize that the American M1 is not a tank for sale. It is, however, the chosen piece of American Steel of the strongest military in the world, where the leo2 is used by arguably the worlds weakest (and definitely worst trained and least experienced) militaries. As I said in the description, I included the previous two not because of experience, but because of innovative technology (which the leo2 has neither of), which may be useful
@patsfanczar ive read quite a few comments of u and your vid. Questions: Do u really think that the combat data is that important, just because Abrams, challenger etc fought against outdated tanks?
I think important data is the one u get when 2 equals fight each other.
And what? muzzle velocity is a thing of the past? joke, i hope! todays tank ammo is "Kinetic energy penetrator" or short KE ammo more muzzle velo = better penetrating power. shape-charge ammo is used for the rpg, pzfst3 etc....
>>> Rifling, while allowing the use of HESH rounds, increases maintenance and actually does not help accuracy at all. Length is something that needs to be intermediate. While a gun to short will have a severe problem with penetrating power and accuracy, a gun to long seriously reduces urban effectiveness. The L44 gun on the Abrams has proven to moderate very effectively, whereas the L55 guns on the CH2 and LEO2 are questionable for urban maneuverability (in my opinion).
@Arestaeus This is the best technology to the date of 12-10-09. I do not see very much in the way of ground-breaking or life-saving technology on any Russian tanks. Even their latest tank is little more than an upgrade on an already dated piece of equipment.
@patsfanczar Best use of Russian technology is by Russian people. We can take our soviet era equipment and make better use of them than high end technology of modern day society of many other countries.
m1 abraams is not the bes the best russians have the best tank in the world challenger2 is seond abrams is 3rd ur jst american who like trying to make americas army look like the best but its not u reily on technodley to much compared to other armys in the world ur pooorley tarined espechly next to the british army sooo getit right
@ccbr1 The fire control system on the Abrams was so good it has been copied by everyone in NATO. The Abrams is a low-maintenance tank, the chally is not. Production ration of abrams:challenger is over 20:1. The abrams is also faster than the challenger. As far as the russian tank, it has nearly no combat experience (certainly none tank on tank), and all it is is an upgrade on the T72.
@patsfanczar Abrams is big and has maintenance issues. Since it has a cooler/refrigerator room maybe next big thing is to make a tank with the sofa in it, for extra comfort.
@Arestaeus Not sure what you are getting at, as the Abrams has the best repair record in NATO (turbines are EXTREMELY easy to maintain). Heat signature has NEVER been an issue with tanks, as all tanks give off enough heat while running to be sighted with infrared, and there is no such thing as a "ground to ground" or "air-to-ground" heat seeking missile (to many heat signatures on ground to lock on to).
In addition, while turbine engines get a little worse efficiency than piston engines (note a LITTLE, it is still a tank, after all), a turbine engine can run on ANYTHING liquid and flammable (that's right, you can burn your wine in it). This makes it even BETTER on logistics than a piston engine because of the FAR greater fuel flexibility (cut off supply lines are cut off supply lines, no matter how efficient your engine is).
@ccbr1 i would have to disagree well yes United States regular army is not as good as the british but we have sooo many more but quality is better but our special forces is tied with british
@Alex2dparty I know very much about the T95, and it isn't that great. Anyway, read the description, this is an opinion, and I see nothing dominating about a T95.
@5000433 The merkava is definitely the safest, but the merkava is also a rather slow, heavy, and under gunned tank. For urban fighting, the Abrams beats all others, but the Merkava has the most safety features and performs remarkably on rough terrain. The Merkava certainly has proven itself against the tanks of Islamic countries, though, and the Merkava has a good fire control computer.
@patsfanczar well I certainly wouldnt call the merk undergunned. Quite the reverse its armour and ballistic characteristics are almost unmatched, and with Trophy being fitted..well. Its electronic and battlefield management systems are also almost unmatched. It also can carry 3 ATGW teams in the back. Come on!
@5000433 The merkava is a decent high quality tank, but it still is kind of heavy and slow, and there are not a whole lot of them. Numbers are an important thing for a tank. The kill ratios of sherman:tiger in WWII were 1:10, but production was 15:1 in favor of the Sherman. I like my historical data, and the Abrams is a high quality competitor, but it is still one of the most produced in the modern era.
@patsfanczar Yes I think that sherman/abrams analogy is ok, re numbers. I know there are 8k + of them. The merk series is 2nd, with nearly 3k built including 500 new mk4s being built. So theres a lot too.
@5000433 Ill just say that the merkava is good, and is proven to be so, and it does compete to be the best, but I just like the features of the abrams more, I like the armor, the turbine engine, the speed, the accuracy, and the numbers. At least you're not arguing in favor of a tank that hasn't even seen combat but has 3 fatalities anyway, lol.
@5000433 It is hard to say a tank is the best when there isn't even any real combat data on it. My position on the leo and its 3rd generation composite: if a homemade bomb can kill a person in your virgin tank, I don't see how it can be called "the best."
@5000433 It doesn't even look that good on paper to me. The gun is to long, the armor has shown itself to be weak, the tank has a poor repair record, and even though there are around 3k of them, the leo2 is spread thin, many countries own 200 or so of them.
The leopard 2 is such an overrated tank, it has never seen combat (thus anyone who can operate it is a greenie), and pretty much no nation has more of them than Britain has of their challenger II. Even having never seen combat it has 2 losses (from a homemade bomb), and it has a poor repair record. The gun is to long for urban combat (which is where tanks are fighting, there isn't anything in the countryside to fight over for very long). The list of problems goes on.
The battle stats of the Leo-2 are poor at best, especially since it has never seen real combat. There are already around 3 casualties from just makeshift bombs against the leo2, the gun is to long for urban combat, the design is rather conventional (which doesn't help it against the tight competition in NATO, just doesn't stand out like the versatile stridsvagn that can operate on 1 man if really needed), and the engine is known for unreliability.
@patsfanczar well tanks are not even sopeso to be in citys and abraham are not the best leopard got mutch beter mobility more fierpower and leo 2 use at some parts the same armor like the challenger and thats beter then the abrahams armor it also got good protction aganst mines and more
There is no use of battle on the countryside. Combat is in urban areas because that is where resources are. Combat doesn't happen for the hell of it, it has a purpose, and rural areas have little to fight over. Most engagements happen in close quarters. The armor on the leo2 is NOT the same as on the challenger, it is a totally different composite. Facts are that the leo2 has never seen combat and there have already been 3 human casualties in one, from simple homemade bombs. It's like tissue.
The abram's MBT has superior depleted urainium-steel armor, which is some of the strongest out there, and beats old composites, and compares well with newer ones. The gun is smooth, meaning it can shoot sabot rounds which do not lose accuracy over time like a rifled barrel. The engine is a turbine, which has a good repair record, and gets a great power to weight ratio. It has a low profile, and is light. The commander has control of an M2 HB machine gun that the leo and ch2 do not.
IT has seen real combat, unlike the leopard2, and most important of all is that there are over 9000 of them, in sharp contrast to the 3500ish of the leo2 that are spread quite literally all over the world in many different nations, and the less than 400 of the challenger. even if the abrams didn't have any of the previously mentioned qualities, it could be judged by WWII data that it is better. For example, there was a 15:1 production ratio of sherman: tiger, and the low quality sherman won.
The production ratio of abrams : ch2 is over 20:1, and they are of more similar quality than the sherman and tiger, with more similarly trained crews. The same could be said of the Abrams and leo2, most countries don't have more than 400 leo2 tanks, and the crews of the abrams are battle-tested and better trained overall, meaning that the abrams is higher in not only quality, but also quantity, making it a winner in any light.
@patsfanczar production radit and somting whit quality and the crew. ok but leo2 got
beter mobilyty and fierpower then the protection are about the same but destroy the athwenty thosand mile convoy of suply truks you need to suply an abraham ok you
dont need so many truks but you now what i meen and the abrahams also an trap for heat seeking misiles. then are protuction radit a chosse of the contry usa in war need more tanks then some contrys in peace
There is no suck thing as a ground-ground heat seeking missile, for one, there are far to many heat sources on the ground for that to work. The speed on the leo2 is only slightly better, and all the repair crews that have to follow one around far outweighs the issue of efficiency in the abrams, which is balanced out anyway by the fact it can take almost any fuel and has a large tank to hold it in. But the most weight stat is production, according to WWII statistics, and that goes the the M1.
@MRbananar right, carl gustav is the Antitank roket abrahams the easies target, cause of his turbine, but i prefer to sit in an merkava, because it`s the savest one for the crew not the most effective, but the savest.
The thing about the leo2 is that its armor is that 3rd generation composite. I don't believe this is superior to either dorchester or Depleted U-steel armor. The other thing is that the leo2 has that long ass gun, which some say gets you much better accuracy than the L55, but I don't buy it: it hangs out so much that it makes city fighting impossible, and that's where you see the greatest use of tanks today. The leo2 also has a very poor record of reliability in countries that use it.
Well the Challenger 2 has a 55 calibre gun , and were the first to introduce it infront of the Leo 2 , it gives us greater accuracy or longer distances hence why we didnt adopt the German gun . The reason why the Challenger 2 only has a 1200 HP engine is to keep it reliable which it is 24/7
Many people think that because it is an L55 gun, that it is a german made gun, the same on the Leo2, which really isn't true. Nothing annoys me more than when people say the leo2 is the best, especially since it hasn't proven anything. It already has had 2 losses to simple roadside bombs just patrolling through afghanistan. The Abrams and Challenger2 have seen real combat and had fewer battle losses!
Yeah, only reason I put a couple tanks on there that haven't seen combat (the #4 & #5 tanks) is because there haven't really been very many outstanding modern tanks that have seen combat, but those two stood out among those lacking combat experience.
@supramanz there is a reason why its called depleted uranium and your right about the rounds the m3 bradley IFV but the reason it is depleted uranium is it is the most dense material known to man and it has given off all of its radiation it has lived passed its atomic half life
Hyperdog456 5 months ago
@Hyperdog456 I'm not entirely sure you know what you are saying...
patsfanczar 5 months ago
@patsfanczar And by the way.. I know you americans are used to believing that you are the best at everything (even if all statistics show the exact opposite) but nothing could be further from the truth.. the Abrams is definetely NOT the number one tank of this time, hell, I would even argue that it doesn't even belong in the top ten!
How can the Leopard 2 not be on this list? Seriously..
R18111983 5 months ago
@R18111983 Argue your point to me. Use data and statistics.
patsfanczar 5 months ago
Ahh yes depleted uranium rounds. Its great to leave something behind, the innocent people be dying from those for decades.
supramanz 5 months ago
@supramanz The armor is depleted uranium-steel, and it doesn't give off any more radiation than you do...
patsfanczar 5 months ago
whats ist leclerc? xD
blackchecker2009 6 months ago
CHALLENGER 2 is the worlds best, well it could take out an M1A2 Abrams easy. america just has more. I think the German Leopard is better than the Abrams too
GREATBRITISHGAMER 6 months ago
the Merkava 4 has Armoured Shield Protection that protects it from RPG's and Anti-tank missiles that makes it the safest tank in the world and the has a special missles named APPAM the tank has an heat guided missiles/rockets and even machine guns. the driver has a 3D map that helps the driver to drive in night the device itself has a special view that can identfy mines!!!!
TheRONIWX 7 months ago
The Leopard 2A5/6/7 is the bast all around tank today. The Leo2A4 and preceeding variants has the vertical turret armour which was a drawback.
The M1 has a good record on it's combat performance (Excellent armour, powerful german gun etc...) but most of it's record is against outdated and poorly manufactured Russian tanks. And it's Achilles Heel is it's engine. Biggest gas-guzzler on the planet, despite having a lerger fuel tank than most MBTs it has comparable range (logistics nightmare).
icantafford 7 months ago
@icantafford decent points, but, for one, the Leo has no combat record at all, and there are no decent tanks today which have faced something other than outdated Russian tanks (if they have fought tanks at all!). For two, while tubine engines such as that on the Abrams are gas guzzlers, the logistics are eased by the fact that they can take any liquid fuel you can find. Furthermore, turbines have the best power to weight ratio, making the Abrams more agile.
patsfanczar 7 months ago
@patsfanczar [shrug] the engine is slightly larger in the Leo2 (smaller fuel tank, yet it still has a slightly longer range) giving it equal cross country capability. The logistics may be eased by the M1's acceptance of fuel, yet most military vehicles use Diesel anyway, making logistics still easier for the Leo2 by the fact that they dont need anywhere near as much fuel to operate for the same amount of time and distance as the M1. The new Leo2's have the L55 main cannon as well, M1 is an L44
icantafford 7 months ago
@icantafford The great advantage of the fuel flexibility is really that the abrams doesn't even necessarily need a supply line, as long as fuel it captured. As far as the gun issue: l55 is far to long, l44 has plenty adequate range, accuracy, and velocity, but has better maneuverability than the l55.
patsfanczar 7 months ago
wtf? where is the leopard 2a7+ or Leopard 2a6m ? and by the way the merkava isnt the safest tank in the world you just have to take a look at the leopard 2a4 evolution THIS is the safest tank in the world !! the merkava looks like he has no armor on the side...
ModernGermanWarfare 10 months ago
@ModernGermanWarfare Looks like and has are two different things. Merkava's have a field record to back their claims of safety, the leopard has never shot at another tank, though it still has 3 casualties in it. The armor is like tissue. At any rate, the Merkava has many features specifically for safety, including a frontal engine and a lower escape door.
patsfanczar 9 months ago
@patsfanczar
ok sorry I'm just annoyed that in such lists the 2a7 + is never represented although tank is our most advanced (in germany)
ModernGermanWarfare 8 months ago
I'm curious as to why you did not include the latest model of the German Leopard on your list? In my opinion, it as well as the British Challenger and the US Abrams are pretty much the top three tanks in the world. I would find it difficult to rank one over the other.
applevalleyjoe 10 months ago
Merkava IV is 120mm gun.And 1500 HP*
xEden1 10 months ago
@xEden1 Original is 105. This is from the proven version of the tank.
patsfanczar 10 months ago
@patsfanczar
ah k
xEden1 10 months ago
Oh and the Abrams? Is shorter than Challenger 2, not longer
14th20thKRHkickass 1 year ago
@14th20thKRHkickass Its height, dumbshit.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
I'm sure an opinion can be wrong, smartass. What is your suggestion, as I can bring up plenty of issues with any tank.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
Comment removed
14th20thKRHkickass 1 year ago
@stalliman Wow, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Area you aware that "L44" means that the length of the barrel is 44 times the caliber, and "L55" means it is 55 times the caliber? Both tanks have the 120mm gun, and shoot the exact same NATO standard round. Now, as I said, the added range is negligible and virtually useless on a tank. "You can hit them before they hit you" hasn't been an issue ever, since all tanks can lob a projectile farther than you can see.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
As I said before, range is not an issue. Longer barrels merely add velocity to the round, which is pointless when in the area that 90% of all combat takes place: the city. Longer barrels do, however, impair maneuverability, limiting where the tank can go.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar read some informations about the l44 and l55. also about the leopard 2a6. when you dont do it not my problem but what you write isnt true. look at the iraq war the fights with tanks were to 95% in the desert and not in a city. and to come back to our point the leopard 2a6 is better than that thing from sweden, leclerc and merkava.
stalliman 1 year ago
@stalliman Not at all, actually. There was no fighting whatsoever in the desert. Using the blitz tactic, it was really only a short time with little fighting (except a small amount of resistance in CITIES) to get to Baghdad. Post something moderately educated next time or I'm going to ban you for stupidity. And pay a little more attention in English class, will you, I'm having trouble reading your comments.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar ok but come back to the point the leopard is better. and when you dont accept that i cant help you. i´ve seen a documentation about tanks and there were some modern warfare specialists from all over the world and they all said that leopard is the best tank of the world. there was a us soldier from the armored forces who said "the m1a2 is in comparison to European counterparts a heap of Shit."
stalliman 1 year ago
@patsfanczar well you haven't got a clue, the difference in the length is about 4 and a half feet and you think this is going to make a difference in traverse effectiveness. Nowhere is a tank going to be where it can't traverse a turret. The S tank has to pirhouette to turn it's gun, in which case why is it on your list?
14th20thKRHkickass 1 year ago
@14th20thKRHkickass I believe you need to look at the fact that the Stridsvagn is a defensive tank made to defend the Swedish countryside, and all of its features work very well to that.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
This guy puts all this time into making this vid and totally blows it by overlaying the shitty text without a solid background which makes it completely fucking illegible. Pointless. Genius.
dong776 1 year ago
@dong776 Lay off, it was my first vid. More of me seeing what I could do in a video than anything else. I would re-do it, but I don't think I even have the project anymore and it isn't worth the time to completely re-do.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
Just as my opnion.
Awesome list.
xEden1 1 year ago
@xEden1
And by the way dude
Merkava Mark IIII
Is 120mm gun not 105mm gun.
and i think its 1500hp.
xEden1 1 year ago
Leopard is the modernest but not the best tank
Janphilipp100 1 year ago
@Janphilipp100 I beg to differ on the leo2 being the most modern: being from the seventies it is the oldest tank in NATO.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar yes its the oldest. and thats the point they have more expirence than all the others with that tank. they made it better and better because over all the time they saw all the problems it has and learned out of that.
stalliman 1 year ago
@stalliman Its still the same tank, and it still has all the problems it had originally (and the platform is aging). Tanks don't have all these problems just fixed with updates, you need a new tank to do that. Additionally, the crews of the leopard are especially green because the thing hasn't ever been used in combat.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar nope the tank was used from the german military in kosovo and from kanada and denmark in afghanistan. nope they fixed the problems with updates. the newest tank hasnt the same problems who the oldest had. when you think that they has the same problems tell me the problems .
stalliman 1 year ago
@stalliman What problems have they fixed? It still has a gun to damn long, an unreliable piston engine, and it still has armor that fits well in comparison with tissue paper. Furthermore, rolling along a dirt road in Afghanistan on patrols does not constitute combat, and the leopard has NEVER seen combat.
(P.S. learn to spell, learn to use proper grammar, and learn to capitalize right).
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar im from germany and my english isnt very good. he seen a combat the kosovo. talk to military specialists they all say the leo is better than leclerc merkava and that thing from sweden. tha m1a2 has the same canon than the leo and the leo had the canon first. since the first leo the leo is in shooting the best of all western tanks. he can drive through rivers and lakes. have you seen the new leopard ? the leopard 2a7+/2 PSO ???
stalliman 1 year ago
@stalliman You mean the "specialists" who also can't get their gun terminology right?
"tha m1a2 has the same canon [as] the leo"
stop right there, the leo2 has an l55 gun which makes urban maneuvering very difficult, the abrams has an l44 gun that makes urban warfare easier.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar yes they have an l55 canon from rheinmetall. the l55 is not only longer the canon has a higher range. the leo 2a4 and 2a5 dont have the l55. they have the l44. the 2a6 has the l55.
look at the leo 2a7+/2pso he has also the l55 but the canon is shorter than the original l55 .
stalliman 1 year ago
@stalliman The range that the l55 has over the l44 is negligible if it even exists at all. Furthermore, tanks NEVER engage in combat at ranges farther than the l44 can handle anyways. Tanks are not field artillery, if you want to hit shit from ridiculously long ranges, get a self-propelled gun. Anyways, most combat happens in and around cities (derp) which does not demand range, but maneuverability.
And you do realize that "l44" is denomination for gun length, right?
patsfanczar 1 year ago
Just google it.
1337Mo 1 year ago
Yes, there have been injuries in Afghanistan by IED, but not any serious:
The incident wasn't serious enough to disable the tank, and the convoy pushed through the ambush to Patrol Base Wilson, Nethercott said. The injured soldiers were evacuated by helicopter to the multinational hospital at Kandahar Air Field.
They are expected to return to active duty.
On Monday, another Leopard tank was struck by an anti-tank mine en route to a police checkpoint. There were no injuries.
1337Mo 1 year ago
@1337Mo Did you read my comment correctly? 3 people have died in L2 tanks. Not just injury, death. And none of it was in real combat. The 3rd gen composite of the L2 is a joke, considering I could cut through it with a simple homemade bomb. Furthermore, there is nothing about the leo that tells me it could stand up against these 5 tanks. Crew combat experience is green, the engine is unreliable, the gun is to long, the number is to few...
patsfanczar 1 year ago
What a stupid redneck video with no facts what so ever.
1337Mo 1 year ago
lol, what a joke. the number one is Leopard 2A6M from Germany
67Molinari 1 year ago
@67Molinari The L2 sucks because it has a very poor service record, and it has 3 deaths without any combat experience (homemade bombs in Afghanistan, what a joke). They are few in the countries that use them, and the gun is clumsy long.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@mingofilaz And where would you be finding these reports? How about the fact that the leo2 has 3 deaths on it without even seeing real combat, or the fact that the leo2 in most countries that run it have extremely poor repair records?
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@SLiDaRr They rambo machine guns and get drunk on base, I think you need to find out a little and quit standing in awe of stupidity (retard). Quit posting stupidity on my videos or I will block you.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@SLiDaRr Wow, really? You have one rare example? Get a brain and get a life.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@ChicoRiono What military statistics do you have to back up you claim to their strength? Training is inferior in all these countries (germans get drunk on base and machine gun rambo-style, and I have never heard anything great canada has done militarily, and belgium has always been run over), and their military strategy is to get the president of the United States on the phone if they get attacked.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
dude there 4 type of merkava to mk1 &2 there 105mm gun and 900hp to mk3 there 120mm gun and 1200hp weight 70000kg to mk4 there 120mm gun and 1500hp and he weight 80000kg.
each one of then equip with 3 7.62 cal gun and 0.5 inch gun
purim2009 1 year ago
@purim2009 Yes... There are also several types of abrams (M1, M1A1, M1A2, M1A2SEP). I am not going to revise the video and put in statistics for every production variant of the tanks on this list, I haven't got the time nor the purpose to do that, if that is what you want.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@ChicoRiono Belgium is weak.
gaelicscots 1 year ago
hehe, old timer M1 abrams on top of the list? That's definitely YOUR opinion ;-)
i don't think combat data is that meaningful for any of these tanks; afterall, none of them have known big, real tank warfare like in WW2, don't you think?
Quite a good vid' anyway, but the text could be easier to read...
bidon3332000 1 year ago
@bidon3332000 Newer than the LEO2 everyone keeps wanting on the list, and more advanced than the Russian tanks everyone also wants on the list
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Yes, and i wasn't thinking about these. On your list, M1 is not the toughest, nor the best mobility. It doesn't have the best firing efficiency, and it is often said the gas turbine was a mistake (consumsion and thermal signature). So i wouldn't have put it in first place (but this is only my opinion ;-) ).
bidon3332000 1 year ago
More on the turbine engine is that it is FAR simpler than a piston engine, giving it a FAR better repair record. As far as Firing efficiency, I'm not quite sure what you are talking about, as its R.O.F. is as good as any other tank on earth and the accuracy of the firing computer, gun, and crew are second to NONE. As I have stated, fuel flexibility gives it GREAT long range mobility, and speed and maneuverability are AMAZING given that we are talking about a tank.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Yes turbines have some advantages. It also allows better accelerations than most diesels. But it seems to me that an important thermal signature compared to diesel tanks with cooled exhaust is a serious issue. Not much of a problem against outdated Iraqi tanks, but what if M1 has to fight against modern tank-killers someday?
Now, i'm no tank expert; the little i know is from what i read here and there :) but for what i've read so far, the commander2 heavier rifled cannon -->
bidon3332000 1 year ago
@bidon3332000 If you look at any tank, it is entirely visible (cooled piston or not) on thermal; thermal is a far overblown issue. All engines create a LOT of heat (and not just from exhaust, the engine itself is just as hot or hotter in a piston as in a turbine). If you are getting this information from the military channel's lists, don't listen, because they are all poorly researched retards there.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar lol ok! Thanks for the info ^^
what you say makes sense. But if thermal signature isn't an issue, why do engineers choose anti-heat device such as cooled exhaust and IR grenades to put on their MBTs? Is it just to sell technologies (as it happens for 5th gen fighter aircrafts btw)?
bidon3332000 1 year ago
@bidon3332000 You are correct. They are designed, after all, by private corporations who have to sell a product, and the more technological frills, the generally more impressed. Cooled exhaust may hide the giant white cloud on your enemy's grayscale IR, but all engines give off lots of heat, and it is ultimately in vain to hide that.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar --> gives it more stopping power. The Leclerc too has a bigger cannon, which gives better power and range of fire (20% acc. to Wikipedia). It also have more sophisticated aiming computer which makes it (again, for what i've read) the only tank able to kill fast moving vehicles while moving at top speed on any terrain, where other tanks would have to slow down to achieve it. And it's also more mobile than M1 ;) IMO,M1 is a good tank getting older.Not sure it still deserves 1st place.
bidon3332000 1 year ago
@bidon3332000 The Leclerc is a decent tank, yes (that is why it is on this list), but the only people who know how to operate that tank have no combat experience. The firing control computer has been derived off that from the M1 (which also has the capacity to fire at relatively distant targets while on the move). The guns on nearly all NATO tanks fire 120mm rounds. The difference is mostly in length and in the presence of rifling >>>
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar you have a point here ;) but what do you mean with "a gun to long seriously reduces urban effectiveness"?
Anyway, MBTs are vulnerable in urban environment, despite all their self-protection device. Tanks are built to go on open battlefields, where rounds can fly :)
bidon3332000 1 year ago
@bidon3332000 Longer guns on tanks make it harder to turn the turret and the tank in tight spaces (the L55 on the leo2 hangs WAY over the edge of the base). Combat does not happen in open areas, it happens in urban areas where there is something to fight over. Tanks need to be (and the abrams is) effective in an urban environment, not open worthlessness. As I said, PISTON (not diesel, as the turbine in the abrams is diesel) engines still create enough heat to be seen.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Longer guns will increase the muzzle velocity,
which is quite important in a tank to tank battle.
Tanks do not belong in a crammed city at all.
One would think that the armoured forces of the world,
would know whats best for them, and countries not
producing tanks by themselves generally select the Leo 2
Stridsvagn S is not even a tank, it is more a tank destroyer.
Obsolete since long ago, it was suitable for swedish needs,
but certainly not better than the Leo 2.
APRichelieu 1 year ago
@APRichelieu Not really. Most rounds don't use speed to penetrate, anyway (muzzle velocity being an issue is somewhat a thing of the past for tanks). What anti-tank rounds use is something called a shape-charge, which uses a charge with a cone cut out of the front to create a jet of molten metal (scientifically proven). This jet is what penetrates and kills, which is what tank armor design has centered around for over a half-century, and it voids muzzle velocity.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
My apologies to be any more blunt, but to say that "tanks don't belong in cities" is extremely naive, and is also saying that tanks are outdated, as combat doesn't happen in the countryside, it happens in at least a respectably sized town. Combat happens in cities (there is a reason nearly all battles are named for a local TOWN or CITY). Additionally, the s-tank may be closer to "tank destroyer," but everywhere you look it is called a TANK (and fit into the Swedish military as such).
patsfanczar 1 year ago
To debunk your "many militaries use the leo2" theory, You must realize that the American M1 is not a tank for sale. It is, however, the chosen piece of American Steel of the strongest military in the world, where the leo2 is used by arguably the worlds weakest (and definitely worst trained and least experienced) militaries. As I said in the description, I included the previous two not because of experience, but because of innovative technology (which the leo2 has neither of), which may be useful
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar ive read quite a few comments of u and your vid. Questions: Do u really think that the combat data is that important, just because Abrams, challenger etc fought against outdated tanks?
I think important data is the one u get when 2 equals fight each other.
And what? muzzle velocity is a thing of the past? joke, i hope! todays tank ammo is "Kinetic energy penetrator" or short KE ammo more muzzle velo = better penetrating power. shape-charge ammo is used for the rpg, pzfst3 etc....
SLiDaRr 1 year ago
@SLiDaRr Soooo.... You are asking me to spend how much to buy how many tanks and do what with them?
And all AT rounds are shape charges, not just RPG.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
>>> Rifling, while allowing the use of HESH rounds, increases maintenance and actually does not help accuracy at all. Length is something that needs to be intermediate. While a gun to short will have a severe problem with penetrating power and accuracy, a gun to long seriously reduces urban effectiveness. The L44 gun on the Abrams has proven to moderate very effectively, whereas the L55 guns on the CH2 and LEO2 are questionable for urban maneuverability (in my opinion).
patsfanczar 1 year ago
This is shit, the Leopard A2 is the best tank the world and not this amy crap!!!
bfmeIInundin 1 year ago
@bfmeIInundin Show me the combat data and I will fix the list.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
come on guys you know and we know thwt merkava 5 ist tee best tank in the world!!
germanisrael1 1 year ago
Whats happen to Russian tanks? Or is this the best of NATO tanks alone?
Arestaeus 1 year ago
@Arestaeus This is the best technology to the date of 12-10-09. I do not see very much in the way of ground-breaking or life-saving technology on any Russian tanks. Even their latest tank is little more than an upgrade on an already dated piece of equipment.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Best use of Russian technology is by Russian people. We can take our soviet era equipment and make better use of them than high end technology of modern day society of many other countries.
Arestaeus 1 year ago
m1 abraams is not the bes the best russians have the best tank in the world challenger2 is seond abrams is 3rd ur jst american who like trying to make americas army look like the best but its not u reily on technodley to much compared to other armys in the world ur pooorley tarined espechly next to the british army sooo getit right
ccbr1 1 year ago
@ccbr1 The fire control system on the Abrams was so good it has been copied by everyone in NATO. The Abrams is a low-maintenance tank, the chally is not. Production ration of abrams:challenger is over 20:1. The abrams is also faster than the challenger. As far as the russian tank, it has nearly no combat experience (certainly none tank on tank), and all it is is an upgrade on the T72.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Abrams is big and has maintenance issues. Since it has a cooler/refrigerator room maybe next big thing is to make a tank with the sofa in it, for extra comfort.
Arestaeus 1 year ago
@Arestaeus Not sure what you are getting at, as the Abrams has the best repair record in NATO (turbines are EXTREMELY easy to maintain). Heat signature has NEVER been an issue with tanks, as all tanks give off enough heat while running to be sighted with infrared, and there is no such thing as a "ground to ground" or "air-to-ground" heat seeking missile (to many heat signatures on ground to lock on to).
patsfanczar 1 year ago
In addition, while turbine engines get a little worse efficiency than piston engines (note a LITTLE, it is still a tank, after all), a turbine engine can run on ANYTHING liquid and flammable (that's right, you can burn your wine in it). This makes it even BETTER on logistics than a piston engine because of the FAR greater fuel flexibility (cut off supply lines are cut off supply lines, no matter how efficient your engine is).
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@ccbr1 i would have to disagree well yes United States regular army is not as good as the british but we have sooo many more but quality is better but our special forces is tied with british
usmawp18 1 year ago
@usmawp18 true very true but i belive special forces is slightly better for the United States
giuseppeL717 1 year ago
wronggggggggggggggggggggggg T95(if u dont know about it than the Russians r doing great(its there secret weapon)it owns)
Alex2dparty 1 year ago
@Alex2dparty I know very much about the T95, and it isn't that great. Anyway, read the description, this is an opinion, and I see nothing dominating about a T95.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
Why is the promoted video link for my vid "septic tank problems"?
patsfanczar 1 year ago
the merk 4 is the best.
5000433 1 year ago
@5000433 The merkava is definitely the safest, but the merkava is also a rather slow, heavy, and under gunned tank. For urban fighting, the Abrams beats all others, but the Merkava has the most safety features and performs remarkably on rough terrain. The Merkava certainly has proven itself against the tanks of Islamic countries, though, and the Merkava has a good fire control computer.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar well I certainly wouldnt call the merk undergunned. Quite the reverse its armour and ballistic characteristics are almost unmatched, and with Trophy being fitted..well. Its electronic and battlefield management systems are also almost unmatched. It also can carry 3 ATGW teams in the back. Come on!
5000433 1 year ago
@5000433 The merkava is a decent high quality tank, but it still is kind of heavy and slow, and there are not a whole lot of them. Numbers are an important thing for a tank. The kill ratios of sherman:tiger in WWII were 1:10, but production was 15:1 in favor of the Sherman. I like my historical data, and the Abrams is a high quality competitor, but it is still one of the most produced in the modern era.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar Yes I think that sherman/abrams analogy is ok, re numbers. I know there are 8k + of them. The merk series is 2nd, with nearly 3k built including 500 new mk4s being built. So theres a lot too.
5000433 1 year ago
@5000433 Ill just say that the merkava is good, and is proven to be so, and it does compete to be the best, but I just like the features of the abrams more, I like the armor, the turbine engine, the speed, the accuracy, and the numbers. At least you're not arguing in favor of a tank that hasn't even seen combat but has 3 fatalities anyway, lol.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar The leo is only liked by those who do not know much about armoured warfare and certain realities. :)
5000433 1 year ago
@5000433 It is hard to say a tank is the best when there isn't even any real combat data on it. My position on the leo and its 3rd generation composite: if a homemade bomb can kill a person in your virgin tank, I don't see how it can be called "the best."
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar its the "best" tank thats never seen battle. LOL
5000433 1 year ago
@5000433 It doesn't even look that good on paper to me. The gun is to long, the armor has shown itself to be weak, the tank has a poor repair record, and even though there are around 3k of them, the leo2 is spread thin, many countries own 200 or so of them.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar I agree.
5000433 1 year ago
vere is Leopard 2 A6
daryal421 1 year ago
The leopard 2 is such an overrated tank, it has never seen combat (thus anyone who can operate it is a greenie), and pretty much no nation has more of them than Britain has of their challenger II. Even having never seen combat it has 2 losses (from a homemade bomb), and it has a poor repair record. The gun is to long for urban combat (which is where tanks are fighting, there isn't anything in the countryside to fight over for very long). The list of problems goes on.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@daryal421 leopard 2 A6 not on this list because he maked the top five dont now anyting
MRbananar 1 year ago
stridsvagn S not just stridsvagn i am from sweden and going over to leo 2 was not a mistake but kepp ing stridsvang s not bad ide just morden version
MRbananar 1 year ago
The battle stats of the Leo-2 are poor at best, especially since it has never seen real combat. There are already around 3 casualties from just makeshift bombs against the leo2, the gun is to long for urban combat, the design is rather conventional (which doesn't help it against the tight competition in NATO, just doesn't stand out like the versatile stridsvagn that can operate on 1 man if really needed), and the engine is known for unreliability.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar well tanks are not even sopeso to be in citys and abraham are not the best leopard got mutch beter mobility more fierpower and leo 2 use at some parts the same armor like the challenger and thats beter then the abrahams armor it also got good protction aganst mines and more
MRbananar 1 year ago
There is no use of battle on the countryside. Combat is in urban areas because that is where resources are. Combat doesn't happen for the hell of it, it has a purpose, and rural areas have little to fight over. Most engagements happen in close quarters. The armor on the leo2 is NOT the same as on the challenger, it is a totally different composite. Facts are that the leo2 has never seen combat and there have already been 3 human casualties in one, from simple homemade bombs. It's like tissue.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar explane wy abraham are the best then
MRbananar 1 year ago
The abram's MBT has superior depleted urainium-steel armor, which is some of the strongest out there, and beats old composites, and compares well with newer ones. The gun is smooth, meaning it can shoot sabot rounds which do not lose accuracy over time like a rifled barrel. The engine is a turbine, which has a good repair record, and gets a great power to weight ratio. It has a low profile, and is light. The commander has control of an M2 HB machine gun that the leo and ch2 do not.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
IT has seen real combat, unlike the leopard2, and most important of all is that there are over 9000 of them, in sharp contrast to the 3500ish of the leo2 that are spread quite literally all over the world in many different nations, and the less than 400 of the challenger. even if the abrams didn't have any of the previously mentioned qualities, it could be judged by WWII data that it is better. For example, there was a 15:1 production ratio of sherman: tiger, and the low quality sherman won.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
The production ratio of abrams : ch2 is over 20:1, and they are of more similar quality than the sherman and tiger, with more similarly trained crews. The same could be said of the Abrams and leo2, most countries don't have more than 400 leo2 tanks, and the crews of the abrams are battle-tested and better trained overall, meaning that the abrams is higher in not only quality, but also quantity, making it a winner in any light.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@patsfanczar production radit and somting whit quality and the crew. ok but leo2 got
beter mobilyty and fierpower then the protection are about the same but destroy the athwenty thosand mile convoy of suply truks you need to suply an abraham ok you
dont need so many truks but you now what i meen and the abrahams also an trap for heat seeking misiles. then are protuction radit a chosse of the contry usa in war need more tanks then some contrys in peace
MRbananar 1 year ago
There is no suck thing as a ground-ground heat seeking missile, for one, there are far to many heat sources on the ground for that to work. The speed on the leo2 is only slightly better, and all the repair crews that have to follow one around far outweighs the issue of efficiency in the abrams, which is balanced out anyway by the fact it can take almost any fuel and has a large tank to hold it in. But the most weight stat is production, according to WWII statistics, and that goes the the M1.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@MRbananar right, carl gustav is the Antitank roket abrahams the easies target, cause of his turbine, but i prefer to sit in an merkava, because it`s the savest one for the crew not the most effective, but the savest.
KAI19772011 1 year ago
@KAI19772011 savest yes but it is kind of wierd then that it suferd more ded crue mambers then some ater tank
MRbananar 1 year ago
@MRbananar The Israelis are the most advanced when doing tank casualty analysis. This is their figures. 1973 3 crew casualties per tank penetration
1982 1.5 per penetration, 2006 .8 per penetration. So now its around or just under 1 per hit. Thats excellent!
5000433 1 year ago
Impossible to see what you wrote in the video try to use diffrent font
yroslav 2 years ago
I got that complaint a few times, but the only way for me to fix it now is to upload a second revised version.
patsfanczar 2 years ago
Good video mate , 5 Stars!!!!! :-)
bubbles867 2 years ago
Ty, I put a few tanks in there i thought were relly cool, like the Stridsvagn. Sweden should have kept that tank and never gone with the Leo2.
patsfanczar 2 years ago
The thing about the leo2 is that its armor is that 3rd generation composite. I don't believe this is superior to either dorchester or Depleted U-steel armor. The other thing is that the leo2 has that long ass gun, which some say gets you much better accuracy than the L55, but I don't buy it: it hangs out so much that it makes city fighting impossible, and that's where you see the greatest use of tanks today. The leo2 also has a very poor record of reliability in countries that use it.
patsfanczar 2 years ago
Well the Challenger 2 has a 55 calibre gun , and were the first to introduce it infront of the Leo 2 , it gives us greater accuracy or longer distances hence why we didnt adopt the German gun . The reason why the Challenger 2 only has a 1200 HP engine is to keep it reliable which it is 24/7
bubbles867 2 years ago
Many people think that because it is an L55 gun, that it is a german made gun, the same on the Leo2, which really isn't true. Nothing annoys me more than when people say the leo2 is the best, especially since it hasn't proven anything. It already has had 2 losses to simple roadside bombs just patrolling through afghanistan. The Abrams and Challenger2 have seen real combat and had fewer battle losses!
patsfanczar 2 years ago
Exactly , i cant really see how you can judge ANYTHING unless its been tested in combat in the role/job it was designed to do
bubbles867 2 years ago
Yeah, only reason I put a couple tanks on there that haven't seen combat (the #4 & #5 tanks) is because there haven't really been very many outstanding modern tanks that have seen combat, but those two stood out among those lacking combat experience.
patsfanczar 2 years ago