I was a tanker on an M1A1 for ten years including a year as a TC in Iraq. Although not perfect it is an amazing tank. There isn't a more combat tested western tank. Best job I ever had.
The first time I saw an M1 was a tv news article in 1975. Seems the new prototype was supposed to put on a demonstration for the government types but it broke down and was stuck in reverse gear. No problem, though. They just drove it around, in reverse, at 60 mph.
A few things that could've been added or amended: 1. The latest variant of the Abrams is the M1A2 SEP v3; General Dynamics has started building the first batch (18 hulls or so) of vehicles for testing, and they've just announced preliminary work on the SEP v4. M1A3 is not even on the drawing board yet, although the SEP and ECP (Engineering Change Package) upgrades will eventually be rolled into the A3 standard. Design work on the M1A3 will (hopefully) start sometime after 2020, after SEP v4's rollout. 2. They're currently working on integrating the IMI Trophy active protection system on the SEP v4. 3. "Chobham armor" doesn't really exist (Chobham is just the name of the place where the British lab is based) per se. "Burlington armor" would be the actual commercial name (for the original M1's armor technology), and the current armor package (3rd-gen HAP) has evolved beyond Burlington, since it adds DU backplates and a few other composites to the mix. 4. There are plans (or hopes) to replace the AGT1500 with a MTU 883 Diesel pack on the future M1A3, though the recent inclusion of an under-armor APU on the SEP v3 might make the General Dynamics engineers change their mind again. A M1A2 equipped with a MTU 883 was showcased at AUSA not too long ago. 5. SEP v3 will include another armor upgrade (called NGAP), even heavier and more KE-resistant than the third-gen HAP found on the M1A2. 6. The downgraded Abramses sold to Iraq and Saudi Arabia do NOT have the DU-encased and DU-backplated armor found on US Army and USMC Abramses. You just don't hand over uranium (depleted or otherwise) to a Middle East country. PERIOD. 7. The training of Middle Eastern tank crews is quite subpar. There have been reports of the tankers leaving the blast doors of the ammo storage compartment wide open or not bothering to button down their hatches in high-intensity areas. Not to mention that a lot of the Iraqi crews were prone to abandon their vehicles at the first sign of a scratch on their armor. 8. Little interesting anecdote: in the 1980s, General Dynamics created a variant of the Abrams known as the M1 TTB, which is basically an American T14 Armata, just 25 years in advance. Unfortunately, the TTB went nowhere. They also conceived two other variants, the M1 CATTB and M1 Thumper, to carry an experimental 140mm XM291 gun, but the latter proved too problematic and the entire program was trashcanned (the Germans and Swiss tried to do the same thing on the Leopard 2 but came across similar technical issues). 9. The US Army tried to mount a L/55 Rheinmetall gun on the M1A2, but realized they'd have to completely redesign and rebuild the entire trunnion and stabilization block, so they cancelled the whole shebang. It's highly doubtful you'll ever see a 55-caliber upgrade on the Abrams, especially since the 44-caliber M256 is better suited for urban combat (smaller footprint for cramped environment) and ideal for the depleted uranium-tipped APFDSDS (the L/55, on the other hand, is excellent for firing tungsten APFSDS at higher speeds, with results similar to L/44+DU APFSDS).
Small Correction the M1 Thumper was conceived and built by Lockheed Martin. As far as I am aware the program had only a slight issue with the total recoil though that was likely fixed later and that the program was canceled as the Russian project it was meant to counter failed also it has been seen several times being shipped around the country recently so it is likely to have been "Canceled". Also both the CATTB and Thumper used a version of the XM291 gun, the CATTB used a 120mm ETC (Electro-thermal Chemical, think plasma ignited cartage) gun which was sort of a bridge between the 120 and 140 in terms of energy. I believe a rapid firing auto-loaded 120 was also tested
Its funny how you still compering SEP v2 and SEP v3 against russian tanks but on every singel video on yt are old crappy M1A2 abrams 😂😂😂👌👌boi you have only SEP 2 / 3 on photos.. LEOPARD BEST
Let’s face it. Its pretty obvious that people hate it because it’s the us main battle tank and of course anything from the us is considered a demon in the eyes of haters.
bb. B b. Bb. Bb. Bb. Bbb. B b b b. Bb b. B bb bb bbb b. B. Bbb. Bb. B bbb b. Bb bb bb b b. Bb bbb. Bbb bbb bb b bbb b. B. Bbb bbbb bb bb. Bbbbb b bb. Bb B. B B B. b bbb b b b b b b bb b. Bb b. B b. B b b b bbb bb. Bb. Bb b b bb bbbb b bb. B. B bbb. Bb b bbb b bb. Bb b bb b. B. B. B. Bclb b bb b. Bb bb b bb. B bbbbbb. B b bbbb bb bbbb. Bb b. Bb b. Bbb bbbbbbb. Bb bb b bbb b b b. B bbb. Bb bbb. Bb bb bbbb. B bbb. B. B b bbb. B. B bb b b b bb. B b. Bbb bbb b. Bbb. B. Bb b. B b. B. B. Bbbb. Bbb. Bb b bbb bb b. B b bb b bb b. Bb b bb. Bb. B bb. B bbbbb b. Bb. B bbb b. B bb b bb b. Bb bbb bb b. B bb bbb b. B. Bb. Bbb b bbb b b b b. B. B b b. B. B. Bb b b b bb b b b b b. B b b b. B b b bbbbb. B. B. Bbb. Bb. Bbbb. B. B bb bbbb. B. B bb b. B bbb. B bb bb b b b. B. Bbb. B. B b. B. Bb b b. B. Bb b b. Bb. Bbbb b. B b bb bb b b. B b b bb b bb. B bbb. B. Bb. Bbb. B bbbbbb. B bbbbb b. Bb bb b. Bbb b bbb b bb. Bbbbb bb b b. B b b bbbbb b b. B b b. Bb bb b bbbb b b. B bbbb. Bbbbb b b. B. B bb. B. Bbb bbbbbbbb. Bb b bb b b. B b bbbb b b. Bbbb. B b b bb b b bb bb. B b b. B b bb bb b b bbb. Bbbb. B. B. B b Bb bb b b. b BMatsimus Gaming bbb. B. B bbb bb b. Bb b bb b bbb. Bbb. B. Bb bb. Bb bbb. Bb b b. B b. B. B. B. Bbb. B. B. B. B. B. B. B b. B bbb. B. B. Bb. Bb. B. Cc cvv. B b. B. B bb.
On the note of the export Abrams, the same needs to be noted with Russian armor. Because the stuff they export is downgraded, the same way we downgrade our exports. And it's like you said, no one wants to sell their good stuff for outside groups. Also would love to see a video on stuff like the BTR's and similar light armored vehicles. Well "armored" vehicles.
Iraqi's actually upgraded their T-72's with money the U.S. was giving them during the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq realized the Armor was not up to par. They also did not like the missile launched through the Main Gun because it filled the crew compartment with smoke and burned off oxygen and was inaccurate. Russian military advisors told Iraqi generals that the T-72 was more than a match for the M-1. Iraq should have known better. Russian advisors had told Algeria the BMP's were capable of engaging the Moroccan M-60's. Despite Morocco being outnumbered 3 to 1, the truth cost Algeria massively and by the time Algeria brought in the T-72's, Moroccan M-60's had the entirety of the Higher ground and Algeria could not get it back. Russian advisors had little experience in actually engaging an Armor Corp that actually fought back. When Israeli Armor Corps defeated Syrian, Egyptian and other militaries equipped with Russian equipment, Russian advisors blamed the crews and tactics. In fact, it was the bad Armor. I could explain the various shortcomings, but why? Looking at the T-90S and the Armata, they have learned nothing. China has learned less. Those who do not learn from mistakes are destined to repeat them.
@@michaelvondrake7489 If had been the Russians with their Russian home grown equipment under the same battlefield situation with the US air superiority like we had over Iraq the Russians would have died just as fast, and just as decidabley as the Iraqis did. The M1 was just that big of an advantage tank for tank and the data l see says it hasn't changed much since then. From what I can see, the only tanks that have any chance against the M1 are all on our side....... That's why the politicians responsible for cutting the original number of F22 air superiority fighters should be horse whipped. If Russia or China can get a better 5th gen fighter fielded in any numbers we could have big trouble in the future. After all the F22 is over 25-year-old and the F35 isn't an air superiority fighter, it's a ground attack fighter/bomber that's stealth 5th generation and not intended to sweep the sky of the enemy.
@@pffear The Iraqi crews were more experienced than Russian crews because of years of war with Iran. They had Up-armored to give them an advantage over the same armor they were fighting against in Iran. The Iraqis used techniques taught to them by Russian military advisors, that had told the Iraqis that the M-1 was no match for the T-72 and they had called the U.S. Army a "Paper Lion". They didn't realize that just months prior, the U.S. Army and USMC held a massive and intensive military exercise with the Royal Moroccan Army who had brand new Russian versions of the T-72. This exercise exposed several weaknesses of the T-72 and Russian MBT's as a whole. The USMC M-60a3's were more than a match for the T-72, the M-1 was 10 times more survivable. The T-72 cannot fire on the move with any hopes of hitting the Target. The Auto-Loader requires the gun return to the forward 5% arch between rounds meaning it usually has to take the gun off the target and than re-acquire the target. The M- 60a3 and M-1 do not have to take their sights off of their targets, ever. Also, the speed rating on the M- 60a3 and M-1 can nearly double their speed by removing the Governor. Russian MBT's do not have a Governor. Their maximum speed is all they have in them. I would never knock Russian crews or soldiers. Obviously among the very best in the world.
@@pffear The slowing of production of the F-22 was Not the result of an Administrative decision. Budgeting for the military had switched focus on the Navy. The F-35 is a focus of the Navy. The Navy gets 40% of the budget every other 4 years. The U.S. military spends more money on our military than Russia and China combined.
I understand that feeling you have when people compare the iraqi M1 to the US counterpart its the same way I feel when i see some one compare Iraqi T-72 to it's Soviet/Russian counterpart.
The Stoned Videogame Nerd I mean you can't really say that it had cotton ball penetrators when it was one of the most feared tanks of that time period, until the Americans came along also to point out the Assad babyl tanks were worse that T-72A's
Matin Foxer ah the good old Iraqi T-72 argument. I remember some guy (absolute Abrams fanboy, real "murican patriot" type) using the Iraqi T-72s as an example as to why all Russian tanks, even the T-90ms, are terrible. It's funny how people get so defensive over their preferred vehicle, although saying that I'd take a chally 2 any day
The Macaroni Chronicles its kind of like that but even more so because the F-35 is a worldwide concept and the Abrams is mainly for the US and a couple of others. Thanks for watching :-)
As a Buckeye, i saw the first batch of M1's on the train cars. They were stopped and i was able to get a good look at them. It was a kids dream come true. Great vid. and great work!
I think the M1 gets a lot of flak because it's popular to hate on the big guy: the hegemon, America. But it's proven and all the speculation in the world about more stylish or exotic underdog vehicles doesn't account for much in reality. And it probably can get knocked out easily by modern CE/HEAT/HEDP rounds: modern warheads- especially tandem charges- are devastating. This is especially true if a hit strikes a side or top plate, were armor is rationed.
You touched on this but I can't help but cheer you on. The M1 is seriously quiet. Any other tank you hear the motor a long way off before you hear the tracks. With the Abrams, you hear the track a long time before you hear the whistle of the engine. The machine squeaks at 'long' distance, but that distance is less than half of the distance at which you can hear English, Saudi, Marine Corps, French, or Enemy tanks. I'm very glad we had them and not the bad guys. Anyone who has read "Infinite Jest" will appreciate the notion of "He heard the squeak" as euphemism for "He is dead".
I was an 0311 infantryman in the US Marine Corps that trained on the M60A1 back in 1985 as part of my reenlistment deal with my career planner. I was trying get to get out of being a ground pounder. Needless to say things didn't work out but before I got my DD-214 I got to see an M1 Abrams up close as the Army was doing some training exercises with our tankers and grunts on Pendleton. While I liked the M60 I was impressed with the M1.
In a personal opinion, while many people don't like the Abrams, it's a good tank in the more modern versions. If it can get the job done, it's a good tank in my opinion.
41mpb on the hard sand of Northern Saudi is an understatement. That is a governed speed for the M1. If you yank the governor, the machine will do 70mph on flat terrain or road. Swear to God. I've seen rooster tails flying behind flocks of tanks that were unfreakin' believable. Also, they wreck a normal road. Any turn at all and the road starts to break up. Makes one think about the roads in Moscow. They must be concrete reinforced, a foot or so deep.
Its a tank thats named after Abram Lunchroom Lincoln, who successfully freed chickens from a southern colonal named sanders whl tried to imprison them into tiny boxes. Then he was assassinated by a booth because he kept talking during a play and spilt soda all over the floor, and everyone got in a tizzy because he farted and blamed the dog named john. They made a movie out of it, it got 4 rotten tomatoes out of 5.
Remember my first time firing the coax. Lazed the little row of Ivan's and fired. A second later and the rounds were spot on. Loved shooting that thing.
CXVII MMDLII by removing the governor in the engine, the M-1 is capable of over 70mph. Russian and Chinese MBT's don't even have a governor. They don't have a catalytic converter either. They're stuck within their designed performance parameters.
I was so enveloped in watching and soaking up all the info that at one point showing the tanks driving away from the camera, I thought, “Man! This movie is so realistic! They even have dirt on the camera lenses as if this was real.” Bravo, good sir! Your videos truly are exceptional. Thank you.
I served in the Australian RAAC and loved being up close with the Abrams Tank, even though I was Cav, still to this day I regret not going a Tanky, their awesome.
I actually think It's one of the ugliest tanks! It's a good tank but if we would be talking about aesthetics only, I'd much prefer modern British and German tanks. Those Russian tanks also don't look bad.
Chally 2 is uglier IMO... Challenger 1 was THE supermodel of tanks... Where did the Brits go wrong...? :( Abrams is nice from certain angles but ugly from others.
Great video! Being an M1A1 tank crewmen myself I can say many of your facts are spot on. My honest opinion is the M1 haters are spineless pussies who will never serve and wouldn't know a tank if it's guntube smacked them in the face. If anybody takes offense to that, please go back to your safe space with your safety pins. Either way, the M1 still has some short comings to be *perfect* but I don't think it ever will be. The movement towards fiber optic is amazing. I hope to see that soon. With the way the Obama administration has been cutting our military so deeply we pretty much abandoned any large advancement packages in around 2010. With a new administration we could see more funding. Which is great! It's been hard as a tanker in the last 8 years with funding cut so badly. We could not get spare parts, ammo, fuel, or just about anything else we needed to train in large quantity. I am excited to see an M1A3 variant in the coming years but it's still far off. Currently the Army is fielding the M1A2 SEP V3 package and developing the M1A2 SEP V4 package. I think they need to abandon the V4 package and focus on the M1A3. That's just me though.
I think the biggest issue with Abrams was the engine kept on pooping out a lot. Turbine wasn't meant to do desert warfare, even with jet blow back system dust just keeps getting past the filters.
Random User I spent 8 years as an M1A1 crewmen training in the desert. I've had my entire tank caked in fine moon like dust in every single tiny nook and cranny. I've never had an engine take a shit because of it. Maybe the first generation M1's that went to ODS had that problem (I can ask some ODS veteran friends who were at battles like 73 Easting and Medina Ridge) but I'm pretty sure the pulse air jet system helped eliminate the problem. I've pulled V packs where the first was filled with dust, and the 2nd and 3rd were almost new looking clean. whatever the problem with it, was probably due to a lack of proper preventative maintenance and less on design. you dump enough dirt into a machine and it will fail.
zombie_tanker19K You know, everybody always complains about how their profession doesn't get enough funding without bothering to consider how *other* things may need money as well.
Hello, serving in your country whatever that country might be is an honor. Can you give us more detail about V3 package, I understand it will gonna have new interface, improved optics and an apu, but I therm of protection what will gonna be ?
I love it .. you ask for people to tell you if your wrong ..and then you remove their comments as fast as you can .. wonderfull ..great stuff . realy shows that you've got confidence .. also the first m1s were in Germany in 1980 .. I know I was there on my mk5 chieftain
Matsimus Gaming hey, I'm surprised you haven't made a video about the possibility of a Second Korean War, where this thing will be fighting old Chinese/Soviet tanks.
Matsimus Gaming some how i feel usmc tankers can load faster becuse after boot they dont need any loading they all ready can throw the shell as fast as it fires
A lot of those videos I've seen of an Abrams getting 'reckt' are often cut short and edited. I've managed to see that the reason why they're edited like that is so you can't see the crewmen exiting the tank unharmed. Yeah the tank is probably out of action (for the time being), but the crews are often all in one piece. Even with the lowest armor package available it's design still stands up where it really matters - keeping the men inside alive to fight another day.
Great video again I've never commented on anything but you have a great Channel I really don't understand why you don't have more subs I really don't I have never seen a bad video from you ! , and thanks for this video I love the Abrams tank ! and thanks for your service even though it wasn't for the US!
Recently Retired 19K here. I can say with total certainty that it really was the best job I've ever had. It was really interesting during my time in the Army that I learned how truly revolutionary of a vehicle this was. The fire control system on the M1A2 is one of the most well integrated pieces of tech and is used in conjunction with the DAGR GPS and location reporting system called the EPLRS. With these things integrated, the LRF could get 10 digit grids for us to use when calling for fire if the targets were out of our range. The thermals are so sensitive that we used to put an interpreter in the Gunner's seat during recon missions and would have him read the lips of people far away. The Driver's station is the best place on the whole vehicle to sleep, as it has a built in reclining seat.
Instead of making a bigger gun, the US decided to put more speed on the ammo, so I realize they are still going to use the 120mm or even a smaller gun but with really powerful propellants for the ammo
Think you smashed this video well done! Only thing i noticed was not mentioned is the fact that the IPM1 has improved chemical protection on the turrets cheeks.
I was in Mishab Saudi Arabia for all of Desert Shield. We moved in to Southern Kuwait as a breaching unit supporting the 1st MEF for the ground attack. At that time I was convinced that the Marine Corps (I was a Seabee (NMCB-74)) was equipped with M60's. That and APC's were the only thing I witnessed in their inventory. I am surprised to know that the Marines were in the process of reequipping to M1 tanks even then. Curious where those tanks were used. I saw none (M1) in the attack on Southern Kuwait and I saw a lot of tanks both our's and theirs. Oh! I didn't know that they named tanks until then. My first M60 was named "Wargasm".
One of those tank that already prove itself in a modern war(Desert sheild/Desert storm) but got tons of hate because of jealousy that other tank didn't went into the same scenerio as it.
Finally a non biased actually look at the Abrams. Everyone on the internet seems to either think it's God given a 75 ton tracked form or they think it's an overweight Mazda RX7 with a drinking problem and some metal thrown onto it.
The capability for the gunner to engage a target while the commander acquired a second was standard on Chieftain of the '70s, and I believe it was developed on Centurion. When the gunner reported "Target" the commander could press his clutch, swinging the main armament on to another target. After observing this technique the 5th & 6th were un-invited from CAT Cup.
G'day Matsimus, just before this video was made, back in 2016, I was in Europe and found myself chatting to a former Russian tanker in a bar. I'm not a tanker, far from it, I'm ex-RAAF. Anyway, I was deeply interested in what this chap had to say about what the Russian military commanders expect from their tanks. His opinion was that they, and their tanks were considered in only two ways: effective time in the battle space and their survivability time. Having read in history books that during WW2, say in the battle of Kursk, a Russian tanker's life expectancy, in a battle, was something around 11 minutes, I was expecting this modern tanker to tell me that their survivability on the modern battle space to be a lot longer. It wasn't. Apparently, they plan on around 17 to 20 minutes in an all-out tank on tank engagement with the West. Not that such a thing has happened yet, these figures must, of course, be based on friend and foe simulations in training. The Russian tanker reminded me of the Luftwaffe pilots of WW2, saying they could win air battles if they had Spitfires. He said they would love to have a tank just like the Abrams, especially with its crew survivability features. I reckon that the Abrams is an outstanding tank and one that has been proven, time after time in real battle conditions. Losing 1 tank to enemy action in the Gulf conflicts is an amazing result when one considers the numbers of tanks involved. Thanks, Matsimus for this early look at the Abrams. Cheers, BH
The M1 Abrams, tremendous tank ultra tested in combat, always victorious. If only it had diesel engine for countries that do not have extensive budgets for tons of fuel, it would be ideal. Greetings from Chile
That's why Chile bought the leopards (under a lot of controversial and corruption cases) but we can't afford fuel, that's why we drive small city cars.
im 4 years late but also the M1's are different yes but also it comes down to the the Doctrine & the End user is also a big thing that alot of people dont take into account when they talk about it
wait what? did you just say at 5:35 that the gas turbine engine offered greater range, lower maintenance? Seems you are reading directly out of the General Dynamics advertisement booklet for that tank... reality is quite the opposite for the gas turbine. There are advantages to gas turbines over diesel engines, like torque and multy fuel capability, but range and maintenance are its weak point. Because even while standing still, the turbine consumes too much to be considered economic. During the Gulf War, the Abrams had major issues with running out of fuel which delayed sever units advance. So much so, that the latest upgrade of the tank will have a Diesel engine. Also the speed advantage is somewhat not true, because the tracks on early models broke due to the speed, which meant that the tank was only allowed to go at a speed comparable to the M60 variant of that time. Also some of the mentioned advantages are somewhat irrelevant: Multi fuel? Sounds good when you have problems providing fuel to the frontlines and you need to take whatever is aquireable...that was never necessary during the last 30 years this tank is around. Silence is somewhat also quite irrelevant when speaking of a 62 ton monster...the tracks will be louder than any engine anyway in most situations. Then there is also the problem with the extremely hot exhaust...that exhaust is basically a flair on IR scopes. And not even entioned yet, the depleted uranium armor...but I guess radiation poisening is the least problem the crews would have in combat. Then there is the issue of weight and size. Being the biggest and heaviest tank is not a positive feature. Also I'd like to challenge this myth of battle tested: You say at around 23:25, that Iraq got downgraded M1A1s, but that is exactly what the Russians gave to Saddam. So in fact, the M1A1 or A2 never actually encountered the Russian built T-72s, which means that the M1A1 and A2 are only battle tested against "downgraded" tanks anyway. It is still probably better than a T-72, but for the price of like 5 T-72 it better is worth every penny. And in fact, the Saudies in Yemen have a fairly similar model to the US version and they get knocked out fairly often, but that is mainly due to lacking infantry support and tactics on the Saudi part. Basically meaning that it is more important how you deploy your forces in combination with other forces, than the single performance of your tank. Which may have also been a factor for the poor performance of the Iraqi T-72s.
The turbine is not that bad at mileage as long as you are driving. When it's parked though it guzzles fuel. Idling is where the diesel has an advantage.
As I personally am an American, I would pour my heart and soul out for this beauty, and hope to serve in one once I'm 18. My only problem with this tank though is the height. Russia's T series, from the T-64 to the T-90 are excellent in height. Otherwise, I would rather have a manual loader, and the blowout panels would be a literal lifesaver
Kusakabe Shinhoto yeah but that's soft kill isn't it? Still doesn't protect that well against non-guided missiles. Still a good tank. It'd be better than being g in isis or some shit an serving in a T-55
Grass. Just grass. Nope, hard-kill one. Israeli has both. It's actually one of their top-teir in military export. They also even have one which is infantry-friendly.
As a grunt I will say we really appreciate when it's below freezing and the armored guys show up and keep those beautiful turbines spinning on all the Abrams If you're Infantry you know what I'm talking about
I know the M1 gets a lot of hate for the lack of fuel economy but that is dumb. It is a large main battle tank, not a Honda Civic. In reality the Leopard and Challenger do not get that much better fuel economy. In 2003 a handful of M1s were lost in Iraq while no Challengers were lost. That fact makes people think that the Challenger is better. People forget that the M1s were deployed in much higher numbers and saw more combat. Iraq owns the M1A1M, they are just the baseline models without depleted uranium armor. The Iraqi army is incompetent, corrupt, poorly trained and poorly led. I can go much deeper into why but I won't. Much of it comes down to crews, they get their tanks in situations American crews wouldn't. No tanks is perfect but the M1 is one of the top tanks, the only tanks that are equal are found in NATO. The M1A3s are being tested and they will be a major leap over older Abrams.
Ericrated arabs don’t know how to drive tanks, simple. Alongside Iraqi tank crews wouldn’t be used to NATO grade tanks and would rather drive a T-72 around.
Have you ever considered possibly making videos about past tanks? I realize you may not have the experience with them, but I like the style you make your videos in, and seeing a few on older tanks would be interesting.
Its not gonna be a good review i mean the only experience we and him could possible get are the ones drom video games thus making it an unreliable review
I remember my dad telling me about his units briefing about the T-72 in Ft. Bragg NC.. Everybody in the room was scared because of its speed and low profile. It also meant that it didn't have to dig deep for when it entrenches itself. It was also when his unit was introduced to the M1. They were impressed and surprised about how fast it can go, especially when the engine governors were off. Although it's discouraged to remove the governors because the engine would shake itself apart going above 50mph. It was common for tankers to remove them because going at around 60 to 70 mph can do wonders in an armored engagement. Least that's what I've heard on that last part.
T-80 much faster than the T-72. And a very smooth suspension compared to T-72. The record for the T-80 a little over 90 km/h to go faster than 70 km/h just do not need, roads are not everywhere)
I was a tanker from 1978 to 1985 . I got to see the first prototype M1 at Ft Knox when I was in AIT . The M1 variants are excellent tanks , and the only problem I can see is the weight and fuel usage .
Its really funny for me max that this tanks is almost 40 years old and proven in battle now the russian realize how bad their tank design and try to counter this aging warrior with the t14 armata which is plague with problem. For me no doub the best tank today is the challenger tank and m1 abrams
The T-90 wouldn't be good against heavily armored tanks like the Challenger or the Abrams. The T-14 (despite it being extremely rushed and filled with problems) has more of a chance against other modern tanks but thats not saying much.
The only reason why good is replaced T-72 tank, is his age. It is useless to alter the design and improve the performance, better to build a new tank, it is cheaper.
Armata is on a level where Abrams and Leopard stopped after the cold war. Back then, everybody was aware that the tanks may be obsolete after 25 years of service and new ones were needed but suddenly the need was gone and the tank projects followed. The Pentagon fucked the budget so much up, that there is just no money for a new tank. Simple, so they say its good enough. The material planning plans are full of this shit, with systems serving 60 or 70 years in total... the B-52 is planned to serve till 2060, which would result in 90 years of service.
I am currently in college, when I get my bachelor's degree in a few years I am going to join the United States Marine Corps as an MOS: 1802 Tank Officer and I will lead a platoon of Four M1A1 Abrams Tanks.
Good luck to you and good choice in choosing the Corps. Just be aware and accept the idea that you might not get your first choice in MOS, going officer (generally) means that there's no guarantees in what MOS you might get after TBS. The needs of the Corps will always come first so even if you do well in OCS & TBS, have good test scores and all that you might not get tanks because the Corps needs grunt officers more, or maintenance officers, or whatever.
xu da GOOD LUCK. Second tanks is down to two companies and I'm pretty sure that's the same for first tanks. It's gonna be hard to get into that MOS as the demand isn't that high.
Good for you. Just be aware that in the US a tank driver isn't a specific career field. If I'm not mistaken, the MOS is just tank crewman and you'll be trained in how to do everything on the tank. Once you're done training and you reach your unit your first job will be the loader, after you've done that for a while then I believe that you'll become a driver, and after that you move to the gunner's position. If you stay on and do well then you'll have a shot at commanding your own tank but I don't think that happens until you're at least a Sgt.
I was amazed at Ronald Reagan's modernization of our Army Air Force and Marine we got a lot of benefits that last us to this day God bless Ronald Reagan and he got them to take down this wall
I hit Germany as a young private just after Reagan got elected and watched as we went from a "hollow army" to one who went up against the 6th largest and kicked ass so bad that even now Desert Storm is still being dissected to figure out how we did it. My only complaint about your comment is about the wall. I was again in Germany at that time and it wasn't Reagan, it was the East Germans who took that wall down and to my dying day it will be the most surreal 2 weeks of my life watching the Eastern Pact implode!
This is another great video. I think that It portrays the Abrams very accurately. I would love to see another video on the Bradley. There have been many other videos done on other IFV's. The Bradley would be a great choice as it is probably the IFV that has seen the most action (at least for Western IFV's). Great job. Keep up the videos!!!
I was a tanker on an M1A1 for ten years including a year as a TC in Iraq. Although not perfect it is an amazing tank. There isn't a more combat tested western tank. Best job I ever had.
georgia bowhunter hey fellow tank command 👍
I hated the tank... being a mechanic. Always had to fix crap, due to operator error :D
those t 72 got rekt
Not really a fault of the tank.
I was 19k Gunner for 6 years (GW-I). Part of 73-Easting.
11:41 eagle piss is the most patriotic choice
Akib Lodhi agreed ;-)
It can run on jam doughnuts and kfc
+Matsimus Gaming birts don't piss
Matsimus Gaming ikr
yellow berries what's a birt? Oh you mean bird?
The best tank is usually the one with the best crew.
the best tank is the one that killed yours and you never even saw him.
@@dragginawaggin you god dam hater get out of here
While militarily what you are saying is semi correct its also far from the truth. Higher technology makes some tanks light years ahead of others.
Biggest gun*
Fixed
The best tank in the world is useless if you fill it with morons. Trust me I've seen it.
The first time I saw an M1 was a tv news article in 1975. Seems the new prototype was supposed to put on a demonstration for the government types but it broke down and was stuck in reverse gear. No problem, though. They just drove it around, in reverse, at 60 mph.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers that.
I highly doubt they were driving reverse at 60mph considering the max speed of the abrams, going forward, is under 45mph. Maybe you mean 60kph?
when the governor is removed, the Abrams can move 60mph.
and by moving that quickly, destroying the tracks at an even higher speed
I would love to find that article
A few things that could've been added or amended:
1. The latest variant of the Abrams is the M1A2 SEP v3; General Dynamics has started building the first batch (18 hulls or so) of vehicles for testing, and they've just announced preliminary work on the SEP v4. M1A3 is not even on the drawing board yet, although the SEP and ECP (Engineering Change Package) upgrades will eventually be rolled into the A3 standard. Design work on the M1A3 will (hopefully) start sometime after 2020, after SEP v4's rollout.
2. They're currently working on integrating the IMI Trophy active protection system on the SEP v4.
3. "Chobham armor" doesn't really exist (Chobham is just the name of the place where the British lab is based) per se. "Burlington armor" would be the actual commercial name (for the original M1's armor technology), and the current armor package (3rd-gen HAP) has evolved beyond Burlington, since it adds DU backplates and a few other composites to the mix.
4. There are plans (or hopes) to replace the AGT1500 with a MTU 883 Diesel pack on the future M1A3, though the recent inclusion of an under-armor APU on the SEP v3 might make the General Dynamics engineers change their mind again. A M1A2 equipped with a MTU 883 was showcased at AUSA not too long ago.
5. SEP v3 will include another armor upgrade (called NGAP), even heavier and more KE-resistant than the third-gen HAP found on the M1A2.
6. The downgraded Abramses sold to Iraq and Saudi Arabia do NOT have the DU-encased and DU-backplated armor found on US Army and USMC Abramses. You just don't hand over uranium (depleted or otherwise) to a Middle East country. PERIOD.
7. The training of Middle Eastern tank crews is quite subpar. There have been reports of the tankers leaving the blast doors of the ammo storage compartment wide open or not bothering to button down their hatches in high-intensity areas. Not to mention that a lot of the Iraqi crews were prone to abandon their vehicles at the first sign of a scratch on their armor.
8. Little interesting anecdote: in the 1980s, General Dynamics created a variant of the Abrams known as the M1 TTB, which is basically an American T14 Armata, just 25 years in advance. Unfortunately, the TTB went nowhere. They also conceived two other variants, the M1 CATTB and M1 Thumper, to carry an experimental 140mm XM291 gun, but the latter proved too problematic and the entire program was trashcanned (the Germans and Swiss tried to do the same thing on the Leopard 2 but came across similar technical issues).
9. The US Army tried to mount a L/55 Rheinmetall gun on the M1A2, but realized they'd have to completely redesign and rebuild the entire trunnion and stabilization block, so they cancelled the whole shebang. It's highly doubtful you'll ever see a 55-caliber upgrade on the Abrams, especially since the 44-caliber M256 is better suited for urban combat (smaller footprint for cramped environment) and ideal for the depleted uranium-tipped APFDSDS (the L/55, on the other hand, is excellent for firing tungsten APFSDS at higher speeds, with results similar to L/44+DU APFSDS).
Thanks for the really through post. It answered my questions raised by the video. You know your stuff and it shows.
I like you :D. And I agree with 6 so much
Really informative 10/10
Small Correction the M1 Thumper was conceived and built by Lockheed Martin. As far as I am aware the program had only a slight issue with the total recoil though that was likely fixed later and that the program was canceled as the Russian project it was meant to counter failed also it has been seen several times being shipped around the country recently so it is likely to have been "Canceled".
Also both the CATTB and Thumper used a version of the XM291 gun, the CATTB used a 120mm ETC (Electro-thermal Chemical, think plasma ignited cartage) gun which was sort of a bridge between the 120 and 140 in terms of energy. I believe a rapid firing auto-loaded 120 was also tested
Its funny how you still compering SEP v2 and SEP v3 against russian tanks but on every singel video on yt are old crappy M1A2 abrams 😂😂😂👌👌boi you have only SEP 2 / 3 on photos.. LEOPARD BEST
Let’s face it. Its pretty obvious that people hate it because it’s the us main battle tank and of course anything from the us is considered a demon in the eyes of haters.
ikr? It's a beast of a machine with an impeccable service record, not to mention k/d ratio.
Who cares. They are peasants.
Hazoish ? They hate U.S cause they ain’t U.S...ha see what I did there?
With a 70 ton weight, it may not be as light as other tanks, but it sure as hell able to run over others to pieces
I mean the US army is an extremely effective force if just fights imperialist wars
Likes go up? Views don't...... WTF?
Matsimus Gaming Lmao
Excellent video!)
thats the true power of the Abrams.
UA-cam
bb. B b. Bb. Bb. Bb. Bbb. B b b b. Bb b. B bb bb bbb b. B. Bbb. Bb. B bbb b. Bb bb bb b b. Bb bbb. Bbb bbb bb b bbb b. B. Bbb bbbb bb bb. Bbbbb b bb. Bb B. B B B. b bbb b b b b b b bb b. Bb b. B b. B b b b bbb bb. Bb. Bb b b bb bbbb b bb. B. B bbb. Bb b bbb b bb. Bb b bb b. B. B. B. Bclb b bb b. Bb bb b bb. B bbbbbb. B b bbbb bb bbbb. Bb b. Bb b. Bbb bbbbbbb. Bb bb b bbb b b b. B bbb. Bb bbb. Bb bb bbbb. B bbb. B. B b bbb. B. B bb b b b bb. B b. Bbb bbb b. Bbb. B. Bb b. B b. B. B. Bbbb. Bbb. Bb b bbb bb b. B b bb b bb b. Bb b bb. Bb. B bb. B bbbbb b. Bb. B bbb b. B bb b bb b. Bb bbb bb b. B bb bbb b. B. Bb. Bbb b bbb b b b b. B. B b b. B. B. Bb b b b bb b b b b b. B b b b. B b b bbbbb. B. B. Bbb. Bb. Bbbb. B. B bb bbbb. B. B bb b. B bbb. B bb bb b b b. B. Bbb. B. B b. B. Bb b b. B. Bb b b. Bb. Bbbb b. B b bb bb b b. B b b bb b bb. B bbb. B. Bb. Bbb. B bbbbbb. B bbbbb b. Bb bb b. Bbb b bbb b bb. Bbbbb bb b b. B b b bbbbb b b. B b b. Bb bb b bbbb b b. B bbbb. Bbbbb b b. B. B bb. B. Bbb bbbbbbbb. Bb b bb b b. B b bbbb b b. Bbbb. B b b bb b b bb bb. B b b. B b bb bb b b bbb. Bbbb. B. B. B b Bb bb b b. b BMatsimus Gaming bbb. B. B bbb bb b. Bb b bb b bbb. Bbb. B. Bb bb. Bb bbb. Bb b b. B b. B. B. B. Bbb. B. B. B. B. B. B. B b. B bbb. B. B. Bb. Bb. B. Cc cvv. B b. B. B bb.
Abrams video without a ton of dislikes? I must be early
Shhhh, you'll wake up the Anti-American cocksuckers!
Thai-Fighter I'm kinda shocked lol
The renault ft could easily take out an abrhams in combat
it can
8 months later, still only 41 dislikes
Alright. Where can I buy one?
Does Geico cover tank insurance?
Asking the real questions here.
Acme covers the insurance part.
Just liability
Do I need a class 3 license for that 120mm gun? Asking for a friend.
@@norikotakaya14292 Class 4 destructive devices
On the note of the export Abrams, the same needs to be noted with Russian armor. Because the stuff they export is downgraded, the same way we downgrade our exports. And it's like you said, no one wants to sell their good stuff for outside groups.
Also would love to see a video on stuff like the BTR's and similar light armored vehicles. Well "armored" vehicles.
Thor Gustafson i think a 50 BMG can pen
Iraqi's actually upgraded their T-72's with money the U.S. was giving them during the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq realized the Armor was not up to par. They also did not like the missile launched through the Main Gun because it filled the crew compartment with smoke and burned off oxygen and was inaccurate. Russian military advisors told Iraqi generals that the T-72 was more than a match for the M-1. Iraq should have known better. Russian advisors had told Algeria the BMP's were capable of engaging the Moroccan M-60's. Despite Morocco being outnumbered 3 to 1, the truth cost Algeria massively and by the time Algeria brought in the T-72's, Moroccan M-60's had the entirety of the Higher ground and Algeria could not get it back. Russian advisors had little experience in actually engaging an Armor Corp that actually fought back. When Israeli Armor Corps defeated Syrian, Egyptian and other militaries equipped with Russian equipment, Russian advisors blamed the crews and tactics. In fact, it was the bad Armor. I could explain the various shortcomings, but why? Looking at the T-90S and the Armata, they have learned nothing. China has learned less. Those who do not learn from mistakes are destined to repeat them.
@@michaelvondrake7489
If had been the Russians with their Russian home grown equipment under the same battlefield situation with the US air superiority like we had over Iraq the Russians would have died just as fast, and just as decidabley as the Iraqis did.
The M1 was just that big of an advantage tank for tank and the data l see says it hasn't changed much since then.
From what I can see, the only tanks that have any chance against the M1 are all on our side.......
That's why the politicians responsible for cutting the original number of F22 air superiority fighters should be horse whipped.
If Russia or China can get a better 5th gen fighter fielded in any numbers we could have big trouble in the future.
After all the F22 is over 25-year-old and the F35 isn't an air superiority fighter, it's a ground attack fighter/bomber that's stealth 5th generation and not intended to sweep the sky of the enemy.
@@pffear The Iraqi crews were more experienced than Russian crews because of years of war with Iran. They had Up-armored to give them an advantage over the same armor they were fighting against in Iran. The Iraqis used techniques taught to them by Russian military advisors, that had told the Iraqis that the M-1 was no match for the T-72 and they had called the U.S. Army a "Paper Lion". They didn't realize that just months prior, the U.S. Army and USMC held a massive and intensive military exercise with the Royal Moroccan Army who had brand new Russian versions of the T-72. This exercise exposed several weaknesses of the T-72 and Russian MBT's as a whole. The USMC M-60a3's were more than a match for the T-72, the M-1 was 10 times more survivable. The T-72 cannot fire on the move with any hopes of hitting the Target. The Auto-Loader requires the gun return to the forward 5% arch between rounds meaning it usually has to take the gun off the target and than re-acquire the target. The M- 60a3 and M-1 do not have to take their sights off of their targets, ever. Also, the speed rating on the M- 60a3 and M-1 can nearly double their speed by removing the Governor. Russian MBT's do not have a Governor. Their maximum speed is all they have in them.
I would never knock Russian crews or soldiers. Obviously among the very best in the world.
@@pffear The slowing of production of the F-22 was Not the result of an Administrative decision. Budgeting for the military had switched focus on the Navy. The F-35 is a focus of the Navy. The Navy gets 40% of the budget every other 4 years. The U.S. military spends more money on our military than Russia and China combined.
Every time that 120mm smooth bore goes off on the M1A2 i get a little turned on
HammerchaseGaming glad I'm not the only one lol thanks for watching
No Problem man, love watching you're videos keep up the good work.
thank the germans lol
Freedom chubbie
Poor M1, got so much hate especially by Russian-tech die hard fanboys which it don't deserve...
the M1 has it easy, the m4 Sherman on the other hand.
Because the M1A1 and A2 blew through Soviet equipment over and over again.
Russian-tech die hard... more like DIE EASY hyukhyukhuk!
Basically the same what th world was saying about our Sherman tanks. They were called coffins for a reason. Worse rank in ww2
Um, no. The russians drove every one we gave them. They did consider British tanks junk, though. But that is outside the scope of this video.
The comments section so far seems surprisingly civil, and not even a single dislike!
Scuzzy Bear seriously its very surprising to me. But they will come lol
Matsimus Gaming should look for AK vs AR or Glock vs 1911 😂
Xeno ???
Because the M-1 is undisputed.
Scuzzy Bear 65
I understand that feeling you have when people compare the iraqi M1 to the US counterpart its the same way I feel when i see some one compare Iraqi T-72 to it's Soviet/Russian counterpart.
Iraqi Abramses were taken from US stocks, so they are not some "downgraded" export versions.
The Stoned Videogame Nerd Those poor iraqi tankers never stood a chance.
The Stoned Videogame Nerd
I mean you can't really say that it had cotton ball penetrators when it was one of the most feared tanks of that time period, until the Americans came along
also to point out the Assad babyl tanks were worse that T-72A's
The Amnesia Grunt2356
Make Abrams out of mild steel,without any high-tech electronics firing 1960's ammo and the result would be the same.
Matin Foxer ah the good old Iraqi T-72 argument. I remember some guy (absolute Abrams fanboy, real "murican patriot" type) using the Iraqi T-72s as an example as to why all Russian tanks, even the T-90ms, are terrible. It's funny how people get so defensive over their preferred vehicle, although saying that I'd take a chally 2 any day
The stuff he says about the hysterical media and shit like that makes me think of what is happening to the f-35 now
The Macaroni Chronicles its kind of like that but even more so because the F-35 is a worldwide concept and the Abrams is mainly for the US and a couple of others. Thanks for watching :-)
Matsimus Gaming yee
F-35 is nothing but a 1.5 trillion Dollar racket
John Connor aye yai yai, what a shitstorm. airforce needs to choose one atrribute to excell at other wise plane becomes shit.
John Connor you are so uniformed
As a Buckeye, i saw the first batch of M1's on the train cars. They were stopped and i was able to get a good look at them. It was a kids dream come true. Great vid. and great work!
I think the M1 gets a lot of flak because it's popular to hate on the big guy: the hegemon, America. But it's proven and all the speculation in the world about more stylish or exotic underdog vehicles doesn't account for much in reality. And it probably can get knocked out easily by modern CE/HEAT/HEDP rounds: modern warheads- especially tandem charges- are devastating. This is especially true if a hit strikes a side or top plate, were armor is rationed.
You touched on this but I can't help but cheer you on. The M1 is seriously quiet. Any other tank you hear the motor a long way off before you hear the tracks. With the Abrams, you hear the track a long time before you hear the whistle of the engine. The machine squeaks at 'long' distance, but that distance is less than half of the distance at which you can hear English, Saudi, Marine Corps, French, or Enemy tanks. I'm very glad we had them and not the bad guys. Anyone who has read "Infinite Jest" will appreciate the notion of "He heard the squeak" as euphemism for "He is dead".
You're one of my favorite channels. Keep up the videos.
Joe Friday thanks man :-) glad you liked it
I was an 0311 infantryman in the US Marine Corps that trained on the M60A1 back in 1985 as part of my reenlistment deal with my career planner. I was trying get to get out of being a ground pounder. Needless to say things didn't work out but before I got my DD-214 I got to see an M1 Abrams up close as the Army was doing some training exercises with our tankers and grunts on Pendleton. While I liked the M60 I was impressed with the M1.
In a personal opinion, while many people don't like the Abrams, it's a good tank in the more modern versions. If it can get the job done, it's a good tank in my opinion.
i think it is good not great
41mpb on the hard sand of Northern Saudi is an understatement. That is a governed speed for the M1. If you yank the governor, the machine will do 70mph on flat terrain or road. Swear to God. I've seen rooster tails flying behind flocks of tanks that were unfreakin' believable. Also, they wreck a normal road. Any turn at all and the road starts to break up. Makes one think about the roads in Moscow. They must be concrete reinforced, a foot or so deep.
What is this tank called? The Abbbraaams? I've heard of it somewhere...
Well, yes.......... yes it is. LOL.
Named after a US General.
SteelbeastsCavalry i
Looking forward to more vids from both of your guys.
Its a tank thats named after Abram Lunchroom Lincoln, who successfully freed chickens from a southern colonal named sanders whl tried to imprison them into tiny boxes. Then he was assassinated by a booth because he kept talking during a play and spilt soda all over the floor, and everyone got in a tizzy because he farted and blamed the dog named john. They made a movie out of it, it got 4 rotten tomatoes out of 5.
Remember my first time firing the coax. Lazed the little row of Ivan's and fired. A second later and the rounds were spot on.
Loved shooting that thing.
5:49 Not to mention greater acceleration since there's no "low" setting for a gas turbine :D
CXVII MMDLII by removing the governor in the engine, the M-1 is capable of over 70mph. Russian and Chinese MBT's don't even have a governor. They don't have a catalytic converter either. They're stuck within their designed performance parameters.
I was so enveloped in watching and soaking up all the info that at one point showing the tanks driving away from the camera, I thought, “Man! This movie is so realistic! They even have dirt on the camera lenses as if this was real.”
Bravo, good sir! Your videos truly are exceptional. Thank you.
I served in the Australian RAAC and loved being up close with the Abrams Tank, even though I was Cav, still to this day I regret not going a Tanky, their awesome.
Sexiest looking tank in my opinion.
you havent seen many tanks...
King tiger for me, and Jagdpanther
I actually think It's one of the ugliest tanks! It's a good tank but if we would be talking about aesthetics only, I'd much prefer modern British and German tanks. Those Russian tanks also don't look bad.
Idk if you're talking about the Abrams, but if you do, imo its also ugly, it just looks like the regular modern MBT
Chally 2 is uglier IMO... Challenger 1 was THE supermodel of tanks... Where did the Brits go wrong...? :(
Abrams is nice from certain angles but ugly from others.
Great video! Being an M1A1 tank crewmen myself I can say many of your facts are spot on. My honest opinion is the M1 haters are spineless pussies who will never serve and wouldn't know a tank if it's guntube smacked them in the face. If anybody takes offense to that, please go back to your safe space with your safety pins.
Either way, the M1 still has some short comings to be *perfect* but I don't think it ever will be. The movement towards fiber optic is amazing. I hope to see that soon. With the way the Obama administration has been cutting our military so deeply we pretty much abandoned any large advancement packages in around 2010. With a new administration we could see more funding. Which is great! It's been hard as a tanker in the last 8 years with funding cut so badly. We could not get spare parts, ammo, fuel, or just about anything else we needed to train in large quantity. I am excited to see an M1A3 variant in the coming years but it's still far off. Currently the Army is fielding the M1A2 SEP V3 package and developing the M1A2 SEP V4 package. I think they need to abandon the V4 package and focus on the M1A3. That's just me though.
I think the biggest issue with Abrams was the engine kept on pooping out a lot. Turbine wasn't meant to do desert warfare, even with jet blow back system dust just keeps getting past the filters.
Random User
I spent 8 years as an M1A1 crewmen training in the desert. I've had my entire tank caked in fine moon like dust in every single tiny nook and cranny. I've never had an engine take a shit because of it. Maybe the first generation M1's that went to ODS had that problem (I can ask some ODS veteran friends who were at battles like 73 Easting and Medina Ridge) but I'm pretty sure the pulse air jet system helped eliminate the problem. I've pulled V packs where the first was filled with dust, and the 2nd and 3rd were almost new looking clean. whatever the problem with it, was probably due to a lack of proper preventative maintenance and less on design. you dump enough dirt into a machine and it will fail.
zombie_tanker19K You know, everybody always complains about how their profession doesn't get enough funding without bothering to consider how *other* things may need money as well.
He didn't even complain about it.
Hello, serving in your country whatever that country might be is an honor. Can you give us more detail about V3 package, I understand it will gonna have new interface, improved optics and an apu, but I therm of protection what will gonna be ?
“Cheap export versions tarnishing your reputation? Must be tough”
- T-72
M1A1 was deployed in Operation Desert Storm, it was not delivered after 1991.
Well done review. Abram's is a world-class MBT and continues to be improved to meet future challenges.
My father was a gunner for an Abrams crew in the Marine Corps, so I'm obviously going to be biased towards the M1.
Man, these are glorious! My test levels rise with each overview.
Canadian here, everything I've ever heard or read about basically mentions this (M1A2) at least is the best tank around.
I love it .. you ask for people to tell you if your wrong ..and then you remove their comments as fast as you can .. wonderfull ..great stuff . realy shows that you've got confidence .. also the first m1s were in Germany in 1980 .. I know I was there on my mk5 chieftain
Wish to donate to support my channel? - Paypal link: paypal.me/Matsimus
M1126 STRYKER ?
Roberts Leska do you mean the TD version? That's the M1128
Matsimus Gaming hey, I'm surprised you haven't made a video about the possibility of a Second Korean War, where this thing will be fighting old Chinese/Soviet tanks.
hey,dont mind if i could use ur video? ill credit thx
Matsimus Gaming some how i feel usmc tankers can load faster becuse after boot they dont need any loading they all ready can throw the shell as fast as it fires
A lot of those videos I've seen of an Abrams getting 'reckt' are often cut short and edited. I've managed to see that the reason why they're edited like that is so you can't see the crewmen exiting the tank unharmed. Yeah the tank is probably out of action (for the time being), but the crews are often all in one piece. Even with the lowest armor package available it's design still stands up where it really matters - keeping the men inside alive to fight another day.
Ulric Kessler it’s propaganda, only 19 abrams have been destroyed directly by the enemy.
Australia bought these several years ago in the M1A1 format as a replacement for the Leopard 1 MBT.
Great video again I've never commented on anything but you have a great Channel I really don't understand why you don't have more subs I really don't I have never seen a bad video from you ! , and thanks for this video I love the Abrams tank ! and thanks for your service even though it wasn't for the US!
Terry Barnette thank you so much for your kind words and support. I really appreciate it.
I hope to be a crewman of the M1 Abrams in the Australian Defence Force when I enlist in a year or two. (when I'm 20 or 21 years of age)
Solo Wing Borders You think they downgraded our tanks like the Iraqi ones?
Sledge from what I’ve researched it has much better armor than the Middle Eastern one
Hey bro u there yet?
@@TheRadioativeBones you don't get depleted uranium
@@TheRadioativeBones there's no DU but it's pretty much on par with US armor from what I know.
Recently Retired 19K here. I can say with total certainty that it really was the best job I've ever had. It was really interesting during my time in the Army that I learned how truly revolutionary of a vehicle this was. The fire control system on the M1A2 is one of the most well integrated pieces of tech and is used in conjunction with the DAGR GPS and location reporting system called the EPLRS. With these things integrated, the LRF could get 10 digit grids for us to use when calling for fire if the targets were out of our range. The thermals are so sensitive that we used to put an interpreter in the Gunner's seat during recon missions and would have him read the lips of people far away. The Driver's station is the best place on the whole vehicle to sleep, as it has a built in reclining seat.
m1a2 sep v for the win hooah us army tankers
m1a3 140mm for the win
and awesome video by the way
I thought 130mm was gonna be the new NATO standard, also we haven't heard anymore developments from the M1 Thumper with the 140mm.
Instead of making a bigger gun, the US decided to put more speed on the ammo, so I realize they are still going to use the 120mm or even a smaller gun but with really powerful propellants for the ammo
Who knows we'll find out when the ones git the field
I like this channel because he speaks with passion. Something this world desperately needs
Think you smashed this video well done!
Only thing i noticed was not mentioned is the fact that the IPM1 has improved chemical protection on the turrets cheeks.
I love it, the Abramas and T14 Armata are two of my favorite tanks
8:35 i freaked tf out i thought a ghost was using my mouse lol
Thanks Matsimus. I have been waiting for this video. Very nice piece.
YAY matsimus uploaded again, ima have to go out and buy some popcorn before i watch lol.
Scuzzy Bear haha I'm getting my popcorn ready for the comments section and dislikes button lol. Thanks for watching :-)
I was in Mishab Saudi Arabia for all of Desert Shield. We moved in to Southern Kuwait as a breaching unit supporting the 1st MEF for the ground attack. At that time I was convinced that the Marine Corps (I was a Seabee (NMCB-74)) was equipped with M60's. That and APC's were the only thing I witnessed in their inventory. I am surprised to know that the Marines were in the process of reequipping to M1 tanks even then. Curious where those tanks were used. I saw none (M1) in the attack on Southern Kuwait and I saw a lot of tanks both our's and theirs. Oh! I didn't know that they named tanks until then. My first M60 was named "Wargasm".
Thanks mother England for the armor. Much love from the USA.
I have been waiting for this video for so long lol love it great video can't wait for the next tank overview
a milestone in the tank designing. it sets new standrds in tank designing.
5:34 I recognize that small building to the right. That video was taken in Tapa airfield in Estonia, right?
Hehehe...I've been waiting for this for a long time...🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 Murica!!!!!!
Back to back world War champs
Production on the M1A1 started in 1985, not 1986. When I was at Ft Knox (1987) we had M1s, M1IPs and M1A1s.
One of those tank that already prove itself in a modern war(Desert sheild/Desert storm) but got tons of hate because of jealousy that other tank didn't went into the same scenerio as it.
Finally a non biased actually look at the Abrams. Everyone on the internet seems to either think it's God given a 75 ton tracked form or they think it's an overweight Mazda RX7 with a drinking problem and some metal thrown onto it.
Being a Abrams loader for life!
The capability for the gunner to engage a target while the commander acquired a second was standard on Chieftain of the '70s, and I believe it was developed on Centurion. When the gunner reported "Target" the commander could press his clutch, swinging the main armament on to another target.
After observing this technique the 5th & 6th were un-invited from CAT Cup.
Very informative. If I were an enemy, I'd say "Ah, the air filtration system, how do we hit that?"
molotovs
G'day Matsimus, just before this video was made, back in 2016, I was in Europe and found myself chatting to a former Russian tanker in a bar. I'm not a tanker, far from it, I'm ex-RAAF. Anyway, I was deeply interested in what this chap had to say about what the Russian military commanders expect from their tanks. His opinion was that they, and their tanks were considered in only two ways: effective time in the battle space and their survivability time. Having read in history books that during WW2, say in the battle of Kursk, a Russian tanker's life expectancy, in a battle, was something around 11 minutes, I was expecting this modern tanker to tell me that their survivability on the modern battle space to be a lot longer. It wasn't. Apparently, they plan on around 17 to 20 minutes in an all-out tank on tank engagement with the West. Not that such a thing has happened yet, these figures must, of course, be based on friend and foe simulations in training. The Russian tanker reminded me of the Luftwaffe pilots of WW2, saying they could win air battles if they had Spitfires. He said they would love to have a tank just like the Abrams, especially with its crew survivability features.
I reckon that the Abrams is an outstanding tank and one that has been proven, time after time in real battle conditions. Losing 1 tank to enemy action in the Gulf conflicts is an amazing result when one considers the numbers of tanks involved. Thanks, Matsimus for this early look at the Abrams. Cheers, BH
The M1 Abrams, tremendous tank ultra tested in combat, always victorious. If only it had diesel engine for countries that do not have extensive budgets for tons of fuel, it would be ideal. Greetings from Chile
That's why Chile bought the leopards (under a lot of controversial and corruption cases) but we can't afford fuel, that's why we drive small city cars.
There is a version offered with a Diesel engine by now.
Where can you purchase one? Looks cool
The Iraqi and Egyptian M1 tanks don’t have the latest armor. Still very good tanks. Crew proficiency is what really matters.
im 4 years late but also the M1's are different yes but also it comes down to the the Doctrine & the End user is also a big thing that alot of people dont take into account when they talk about it
M1A1 were fielded with the 64th Armor in 1987
Abrams is legendary and iconic epic also invincible expendable one of the few kind of MBT's I used to ❤️very much...👍🏻
wait what? did you just say at 5:35 that the gas turbine engine offered greater range, lower maintenance? Seems you are reading directly out of the General Dynamics advertisement booklet for that tank... reality is quite the opposite for the gas turbine.
There are advantages to gas turbines over diesel engines, like torque and multy fuel capability, but range and maintenance are its weak point. Because even while standing still, the turbine consumes too much to be considered economic. During the Gulf War, the Abrams had major issues with running out of fuel which delayed sever units advance. So much so, that the latest upgrade of the tank will have a Diesel engine.
Also the speed advantage is somewhat not true, because the tracks on early models broke due to the speed, which meant that the tank was only allowed to go at a speed comparable to the M60 variant of that time.
Also some of the mentioned advantages are somewhat irrelevant: Multi fuel? Sounds good when you have problems providing fuel to the frontlines and you need to take whatever is aquireable...that was never necessary during the last 30 years this tank is around.
Silence is somewhat also quite irrelevant when speaking of a 62 ton monster...the tracks will be louder than any engine anyway in most situations.
Then there is also the problem with the extremely hot exhaust...that exhaust is basically a flair on IR scopes.
And not even entioned yet, the depleted uranium armor...but I guess radiation poisening is the least problem the crews would have in combat.
Then there is the issue of weight and size. Being the biggest and heaviest tank is not a positive feature.
Also I'd like to challenge this myth of battle tested: You say at around 23:25, that Iraq got downgraded M1A1s, but that is exactly what the Russians gave to Saddam. So in fact, the M1A1 or A2 never actually encountered the Russian built T-72s, which means that the M1A1 and A2 are only battle tested against "downgraded" tanks anyway. It is still probably better than a T-72, but for the price of like 5 T-72 it better is worth every penny.
And in fact, the Saudies in Yemen have a fairly similar model to the US version and they get knocked out fairly often, but that is mainly due to lacking infantry support and tactics on the Saudi part. Basically meaning that it is more important how you deploy your forces in combination with other forces, than the single performance of your tank. Which may have also been a factor for the poor performance of the Iraqi T-72s.
You'd fail an A&P class just by existing
If you notice the Saudis just lead the tanks ahead and they're not supported by infantry at all we give them good ass export tanks and they fuck up 😤🙂
The turbine is not that bad at mileage as long as you are driving. When it's parked though it guzzles fuel. Idling is where the diesel has an advantage.
As I personally am an American, I would pour my heart and soul out for this beauty, and hope to serve in one once I'm 18. My only problem with this tank though is the height. Russia's T series, from the T-64 to the T-90 are excellent in height. Otherwise, I would rather have a manual loader, and the blowout panels would be a literal lifesaver
Look at the bright side, it's still wayyy shorter than Merkava.
Kusakabe Shinhoto oh yeah. And the merkava really doesn't like heat missiles. It's armor is mostly steel.
Grass. Just grass. Guess why they develop APS, huh?
Kusakabe Shinhoto yeah but that's soft kill isn't it? Still doesn't protect that well against non-guided missiles. Still a good tank. It'd be better than being g in isis or some shit an serving in a T-55
Grass. Just grass. Nope, hard-kill one. Israeli has both. It's actually one of their top-teir in military export. They also even have one which is infantry-friendly.
8:37 I thought my computer had been hacked.
The fire control system on this tank is second to none. Exactly what a tank gun should be.
Ah, the Abrams... such a sexy tank
Colin Thorneycroft agreed :-) thanks for watching!!
no problem man, i enjoy this kind of content with * human * voices
Colin Thorneycroft glad someone does. Not sure how I am not getting the views and subs that some of the foul robot voiced channels that are out there
it's one of those great mysteries of youtube, those channels... the robot voices physically hurt my ears and just sound bad in the first place
Colin Thorneycroft yeah lol I dunno it’s just frustrating
One big advantage of the turbine engine was that it was light. This allowed more weight to be put into armor
I would like to know how exactly do unmanned turrets (for machine guns) work on tanks.
Enclave Soldier nice power armor
Likely they’re remote controlled by a crew member.
A lot of the mountain content at 14:00 is in Montana, USA where the Limestone Firing range and mountain training center is located.
My favorite tank🥰
Ye me too I love Abrams
Man, it hurts to see those Marine Abrams at Bridgeport. RIP Marine Tankers 1923-2020
7:28 Someone in Korea got a present from Santa
It still blows my mind how this is one of the heaviest vehicles, but the fastest tank in the world.
jet engine
As a grunt I will say we really appreciate when it's below freezing and the armored guys show up and keep those beautiful turbines spinning on all the Abrams
If you're Infantry you know what I'm talking about
I know the M1 gets a lot of hate for the lack of fuel economy but that is dumb. It is a large main battle tank, not a Honda Civic. In reality the Leopard and Challenger do not get that much better fuel economy. In 2003 a handful of M1s were lost in Iraq while no Challengers were lost. That fact makes people think that the Challenger is better. People forget that the M1s were deployed in much higher numbers and saw more combat. Iraq owns the M1A1M, they are just the baseline models without depleted uranium armor. The Iraqi army is incompetent, corrupt, poorly trained and poorly led. I can go much deeper into why but I won't. Much of it comes down to crews, they get their tanks in situations American crews wouldn't. No tanks is perfect but the M1 is one of the top tanks, the only tanks that are equal are found in NATO. The M1A3s are being tested and they will be a major leap over older Abrams.
Well put.
Ericrated arabs don’t know how to drive tanks, simple. Alongside Iraqi tank crews wouldn’t be used to NATO grade tanks and would rather drive a T-72 around.
25:25 Just curios, why is the Leclerc and Ariete rarely mentioned when talking NATO?
Because nobody likes the French and when people think of italy nobody thinks of good tanks (not saying the ariete is bad)
American:50 bmg
British:you mean 12.7×99mm
12.7x107mm*
The best tank is the one all ghillied-up, doing a 360 trickshot across the map while flying by at high speed.
Could you do the chieftain?
Josh hmmm maybe. Let me think about it. Thanks so much for watching!! :-)
No problem man :)
Matsimus Gaming Can you so videos about fighter planes? If not can you do Leo 2 revolution? thanks.
Matsimus Gaming Or Chally 2 ;)
Have you ever considered possibly making videos about past tanks? I realize you may not have the experience with them, but I like the style you make your videos in, and seeing a few on older tanks would be interesting.
Its not gonna be a good review i mean the only experience we and him could possible get are the ones drom video games thus making it an unreliable review
can you make a video about T-84 Oplot m next? Its a Ukrainian made mbt. I think it has one of the most interesting mbt to date.
f50koenigg I can maybe do that! Stay tuned :-)
Matsimus Gaming And if possible, Arjun MK-1 and MK-2?
I remember my dad telling me about his units briefing about the T-72 in Ft. Bragg NC.. Everybody in the room was scared because of its speed and low profile. It also meant that it didn't have to dig deep for when it entrenches itself. It was also when his unit was introduced to the M1. They were impressed and surprised about how fast it can go, especially when the engine governors were off. Although it's discouraged to remove the governors because the engine would shake itself apart going above 50mph. It was common for tankers to remove them because going at around 60 to 70 mph can do wonders in an armored engagement. Least that's what I've heard on that last part.
T-80 much faster than the T-72. And a very smooth suspension compared to T-72. The record for the T-80 a little over 90 km/h to go faster than 70 km/h just do not need, roads are not everywhere)
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Too bad the engine on the T80 was complex and needed experienced mechanics to keep it going. Great tank, but not for general use.
it's awesome seeing my tank in latvia at 10:40
I was a tanker from 1978 to 1985 . I got to see the first prototype M1 at Ft Knox when I was in AIT . The M1 variants are excellent tanks , and the only problem I can see is the weight and fuel usage .
Its really funny for me max that this tanks is almost 40 years old and proven in battle now the russian realize how bad their tank design and try to counter this aging warrior with the t14 armata which is plague with problem. For me no doub the best tank today is the challenger tank and m1 abrams
The T-90 is pretty good.
The T-90 wouldn't be good against heavily armored tanks like the Challenger or the Abrams. The T-14 (despite it being extremely rushed and filled with problems) has more of a chance against other modern tanks but thats not saying much.
The only reason why good is replaced T-72 tank, is his age. It is useless to alter the design and improve the performance, better to build a new tank, it is cheaper.
Armata is on a level where Abrams and Leopard stopped after the cold war. Back then, everybody was aware that the tanks may be obsolete after 25 years of service and new ones were needed but suddenly the need was gone and the tank projects followed.
The Pentagon fucked the budget so much up, that there is just no money for a new tank.
Simple, so they say its good enough.
The material planning plans are full of this shit, with systems serving 60 or 70 years in total... the B-52 is planned to serve till 2060, which would result in 90 years of service.
Saden Let's be honest the T-90 is just a T-72 with a lot of shitty upgrades
Great video, thanks for all your effort making this
I am currently in college, when I get my bachelor's degree in a few years I am going to join the United States Marine Corps as an
MOS: 1802 Tank Officer and I will lead a platoon of Four M1A1 Abrams Tanks.
Good luck to you and good choice in choosing the Corps. Just be aware and accept the idea that you might not get your first choice in MOS, going officer (generally) means that there's no guarantees in what MOS you might get after TBS. The needs of the Corps will always come first so even if you do well in OCS & TBS, have good test scores and all that you might not get tanks because the Corps needs grunt officers more, or maintenance officers, or whatever.
xu da GOOD LUCK.
Second tanks is down to two companies and I'm pretty sure that's the same for first tanks.
It's gonna be hard to get into that MOS as the demand isn't that high.
xu da that's also my dream haha, got 6 more years
i want to be a m1 tank driver when i grow up
Good for you. Just be aware that in the US a tank driver isn't a specific career field. If I'm not mistaken, the MOS is just tank crewman and you'll be trained in how to do everything on the tank. Once you're done training and you reach your unit your first job will be the loader, after you've done that for a while then I believe that you'll become a driver, and after that you move to the gunner's position. If you stay on and do well then you'll have a shot at commanding your own tank but I don't think that happens until you're at least a Sgt.
A video I saw recently had a Go-Pro fitted to an arrow. Would be cool to see a Go-Pro on a tank round. :) Good info as always Matsimus.
Most likely it would not survive the acceleration (g's) of being fired.
It definently wouldn't survive impact with the ground or whatever it hits.
@@aevangel1 good point, but you see videos heading right to target, albeit weapons fired a a slower velocity.
I was amazed at Ronald Reagan's modernization of our Army Air Force and Marine we got a lot of benefits that last us to this day God bless Ronald Reagan and he got them to take down this wall
I hit Germany as a young private just after Reagan got elected and watched as we went from a "hollow army" to one who went up against the 6th largest and kicked ass so bad that even now Desert Storm is still being dissected to figure out how we did it. My only complaint about your comment is about the wall. I was again in Germany at that time and it wasn't Reagan, it was the East Germans who took that wall down and to my dying day it will be the most surreal 2 weeks of my life watching the Eastern Pact implode!
As an old CDAT I approve of this message. Subbed.
“Gunner, two-story building, 1 o'clock, second floor balcony!”
“Target acquired!”
*”Fire!”*
"what balcony sir" =P
This is another great video. I think that It portrays the Abrams very accurately. I would love to see another video on the Bradley. There have been many other videos done on other IFV's. The Bradley would be a great choice as it is probably the IFV that has seen the most action (at least for Western IFV's). Great job. Keep up the videos!!!
8:38 a youtube video within a youtube video