M1 Abrams vs Leopard 2: Bad History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 вер 2022
- Sources:
Abrams by RP Hunnicutt
U.S. Army XM-1 Tank Program: Hearings Before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, Second Session, August 10, 27, and September 14, 1976: books.google.com/books?id=15C...
books.google.ne/books?id=Nv-9...
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/C...
Music credits:
Half-Life Outro theme
Half-Life 2 Soundtrack: "Last Legs"
Greetings Spookston fans!
Hello!
Sup
Hellooo
Wassuuuupp
Yoooo
I don't get why it's so crazy that America picked their own, equally as good and designed at home tank over a German import model.
I’m surprised because no one bats an eye when Russia, Germany, Britain and the such choosing their own design. Maybe it’s because there is an advantage to choosing your own design that’ll fit what you want and not having to deal with a tank that doesn’t fit what’s needed?
@@Predator20357 maybe, especially given how stingy the US government is about having stuff made within their borders. Even when a foreign contractor wins a contract (like Sig with the new rifle for the army) the government makes them produce it in the US. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
@@FirstNameLastName-qx8ii What it makes me think is that the US doesn’t want to wait on anyone else. If it’s something that goes to the main people, they might not want the factories be foreign and have someone go “whoops, we are having shipping problems, your brand new stuff will have to wait”
Again, no one cares if Germany makes their German things in Germany or if the British, French, Russians do so as well.
@@FirstNameLastName-qx8ii sometimes the ability of US government to butt fvck a companies how big or influential it is because some Senator/Congressman wants a piece of the loot
Naw fam, that's just how the military industrial complex rolls. Gotta spread that tax payer dollar stateside you know.
Current-gen MBTs are a bit like WWI-era bolt action military rifles: they all have very similar capabilities, which is 'best' is largely down to personal preference, but the Russians ones are probably the worst...
It doesn’t matter even if the Abrams is slightly overmatched. It’s only a part of the US war behemoth of logistics, training, manpower and combined arms with air, artillery and mechanised infantry. Add to that the experience of fighting a war every decade, there’s just no win against the US Air, Land or Sea.
Well, man for man perhaps the Israelis but that’s about it.
they dont have the numbers@@Jemmartin
Poor Mosin, however it is pretty comparable, considering that thing came out 1891, making it older than most if not all of the rifles in frontline service. Something like the T72B 1989 compared to the M1A2s and Leo 2A4s and 5s.
@@TermIANatorQuality > Quantity
Excellent video and excellent music choice. I came at Spookston's recommendation and did not regret it. Well done!
Based american steel enjoyer
watch the vid first then comment lah cibai...mana otak ziau ti ? budu2 btul
vs average Leopard 2 fans
The F35 is gaining great support here in Australia with it's runs at pitch black in darwin and flight demo's at v8 supercar races at Darwin and Bathurst last weekend. At Pitch black we had eurofighters, rafale's. mig's, sukhoi's, F15's and F16's that were all dealt with easily by RAAF F35's and 18's working in tandem. The F35's cleared the way so the 18's could do their thing.
The European armies that adopted the Leo2A4 before the end of the Cold War did so for the same reason the Canadians adopted the Leo1A3/C1 for their mech bde gp in Germany. Parts, technical support and training support was cheaper than that for the M1A1. When the Egyptians and Saudis adopted M1A1/M1A2, the maintenance costs were more equal and the M1 was purchased.
Don't kid yourself.. there's a lot more than purchase and maintenance cost involved.. I'm sure a lot of US "politics" were "explained" for the Egyptians and Saudis
@hisheighnessthesupremebeing what about the "politics" for why European countries choose the leopard 2
@@hisheighnessthesupremebeing Keep in mind the US sold an entire M1 factory to Egypt, and this factory continues at low production rates doing overhauls even today. The Egyptian couldn't buy a Leopard 2 factory.
Unironically, Canada only bought Leopard 1s because Pierre Trudeau and his admin had friends who wanted to dump a large number of obsolete tanks. Trudeau was happy because he was perfectly content with the Canadian military becoming an internal security force whose main opponent was the FLQ (Quebec nationalists) rather than actually being able to stand against the Soviet Union, and the friends were happy with the money they got for these obsolete tanks.
Canadian military gets screwed again unfortunately.
We are blessed with MIC knowledge.
Glad Spookston sent me this way. Fantastic content.
honestly one of the best takes on this i've seen, thanks for the amazing content man
The AGT-1500 used more fuel but had less maintenance requirements, which meant a cheaper tank over its service life.
It only used more fuel when in idle mode, APU solved that problem.
Finally, some good fucking history.
It's absolutely hilarious that in every video I watch about American military hardware there will always be somebody insulting Pierre sprey.
It’s great to see you still make videos, used to love your stuff a few years back!!!
Cone got called out once again, lol
Honestly a really big deal in my eyes with the leopard 2 that I feel dosnt get brought up enough, is that it has a much smaller rack in it's blowout panels, and often crew have to rely on the HULL AMMO STORAGE with no blowout protection to carry a decent amount of ammo into battle. I feel like the hull ammo storage greatly compromised the leopard 2's crew survivability
RAH-66 was turned, like all *good* MIC projects, into a way to develop a ton of extremely useful technology that would later be filtered down to a million different things. The Apache isn't the same aircraft because of it. Apache is a crazy lethal and effective helicopter because of it, as is AH-1Z, and honestly the consequences of that specific program go through all the later Hellfires, all the western world's attack helicopters in one form or another, things like Small Diameter Bomb being able to hit moving targets, etc.
We did a lot with RAH-66.
LCS was not like that. Zumwalt was but we won't see the fruit for a long time.
Austal scammed US government with LCS promises features.
Things which first appeared on the LCS like the 76mm gun and NSM are going on the contellation, so it is like that a little bit
It should be noted that the Leo 2A4 thermal sight and the stabilization was designed and built by Hughes & Honeywell. It is a Leo2A4 because the Leo 2A2 was equipped with a light intensification sight, also designed in the US. The M1 entered service at the same time with a thermal sight. Yes, the US eventually adopted a version of the Rheinmetall 120mm, the M256 which had 25% less parts.
Good ol German overengineering.
The L44 cannon built under license in the United States has actually been improved over the German version. Different mechanism, different propellant, different muzzle velocity.
@@classicgalactica5879 The initial model of the M256 as per US Army publications in 1986 and open sources such as Hunicutt, Jane's Armor and Artillery 1985-86 and 90-91 and Jane's AFV Retrofit Systems, 1991-1992, was a copy of the Rheinmettal gun modified for American manufacturing processes. This resulted in the American version being slightly lighter. The difference in ammunition has nothing to do with the gun, which still has the same dimensions and chamber IAW STANAG (all 120mm tank guns developed from the Rheinmettal and the French CN-120-F1 have interchangeable ammunition manufactured to NATO standards, including the Japanese and Israeli version). The M829 series ammo was adopted with the gun and was part of a family of ammunition which included the M830 APDSFS from the 105mm M68. The Bundesheer used the DM13, 23 and 33. The difference was the heavier DU projectile in the M829A1, which gave a slightly lower muzzle velocity. Both families of projectiles could be fired in either gun, but only to an estimated battle bore sight as neither tank's fire control systems were designed to work with the other countries' ammunition.
@@michaelsnyder3871dude, M830 is a 120 mil HEAT-FS Round. The only 105, darts ever used are M735, M774, M833, and M900.
finally, these guys videos are all really good
I really enjoy this style of content, cool video
You make great stuff! Keep it up!
a welcome suprise
great work as always!
I think of M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 as sisters rather than one copying the other. And much like siblings, born from the same parents, one inherits the German Panzerkampfwagen legacy, while the other inherits American superiority in Aviation and Electronics technology. I find it insulting to compare one from the other, picking favorites to make a narrative. Both are excellent overperformers, and both are the best in their own fields.
I'd say they're more like cousins they've got a common ancestor they're related to but they are still very very different
@@spartanx9293 I mean they can be sisters but still be very different. I chose sisters as they are direct decendants of the MBT-70.
Thanks Dalek for sifting through all the sources and BS sources to provide this informative video!
I'm never relying on cone of arc ever again lol
Came from Spookston, this guy seems troublesome…. Im subbing
Going back through the references from Taschenbuch der Panzer 1976 to Jane's Armour and Artillery 1991-1992 and everything in between, I have a theory about the Leopard 2AV. When you look at the first prototypes of the Leopard 2 there is a good deal of similarity to the Leopard 1A3/1A4, especially the turret. The turret in the Leopard 1A3/1A4 used spaced armor and high hardness steel and RHA to create a turret front of about the equivalent of a vertical RHA 100mm plate. The priority of capabilities in the Leopard 1 mirrored those of the AMX-30: firepower, mobility and as much armor as the desired mobility would allow. The Leopard 1A3/1A4 was essentially protected against APHE and AP shot from 20-30mm autocannon across the frontal quadrant. Initially, the Leopard 2 followed these same design priorities.
The first Leopard 2A2 prototypes were built just after the Brits revealed their version of multi-layered steel, ceramic and spaced armor, which became named after the lab that developed, Chobham. The US Army had been playing around with silicates in armor packages since 1952. The usual laminated system would be a plate of high hardness plate and an RHA plate sandwiching the ceramic plate. The problem was that the impact of projectiles on the silicate armor plate could cause cracks across a wide area of the plate. They found that "Quickcrete" of all things would repair and restore the plate's resistance to HEAT and HESH/HEP rounds, but not AP shot/APHE or HVAP. The Brits had solved the cracks problem by putting the ceramics as tiles in a polyurethane matrix between the plates and adding additional layers of other materials and adding spaces. This and the cost of producing such armor led to its exclusion from the M60A1 in 1962, which was originally supposed to have a laminate of 1" high hardness steel, 2" of silicate armor and 2" of RHA on the upper glacis and injected silicate in the turret front and sides.
The Leopard 2 would not get "Chobham" armor until after the preproduction run, one of which became the Leopard 2AV. Which explains why the turret frontal protection consisted of only spaced armor between high hardness and RHA plates. The measured weights of the prototypes, preproduction models and the initial production shows a two ton difference, enough to account for the replacement of the original spaced armor by a "Chobham" package.
Pictured: Underrated UA-camr explains why the most powerful military-industrial complex on the planet isn’t reliant on theft and is actually capable of functioning independently.
Good to see you're still making videos! Dalek, I remember our little UA-cam war and I still watch your videos
Is no one gonna talk about the lazerpig reference at 9:15?
based lazerpig
excellent presentation!
keep it up
The Goat is back
There is the fact that armies are inherently nationalistic. So if a country can, they will develop there own tank ,they do and this is reflected in the real world. Why would anyone expect the US to accept a foreign tank design even a very good one if it's perfectly capable of designing and producing its own tank?
Honestly quite superfluous when the idea is that the guys making the best tank just happen to be in the neighborhood lmao
Countries that the ability to develops and produce their own tank tend to do so because they can build it from the ground up to suit their needs and doctrine.
The x m1 was designed to meet the requirements of the US where the Germans had to use a modified design which comes with drawbacks.
@@sniperfi4532 precisely!
@@mamarussellthepie3995 well when you're designing a tank for your own military you tend to know what you need and so you will specialize it for your own military the Germans did not do this The leopard 2 was built for export
@@mamarussellthepie3995How so america and germany share Very little culture and are an entire continent away.
No way! I used to love your videos and was upset when you disappeared off UA-cam. Glad to see you back, what happened to the old videos?
Spookston sent me here. I clicked a sub button right away. Let's call it a benefit of the doubt. ;)
I am not surprised the American MBT-70 team went far enough to cut away things from XM803. They had put a lot into the MBT-70 and some of the final cuts were just too much. 1. Lock out the pneumatic-hydraulic suspension at ~17", remove the manifolds and controls. 2. Keep the ammo in the bustle but dump the auto loader. The loader's hatch could go up through the area which once held the 20mm gun. 3. Move the CIS over and put a rail around the commander's and loader's hatches. Putting a .50 HMG on the CIS made no sense. 4. Some of the money saved could have gone into silicate laminated armor, something the US Army had been looking at since 1952-53. 5. Relooked the stub cartridge. The 2d generation tungsten-steel APDSFS round out of the XM150 gun-launcher could punch through ~600mm RHA plate at the vertical. A fourth generation DU round would have penetrated ~750mm. 6. Dropped the M150 into the M60A2. 7. A later option would have been dropping an GT-1500 in to standardize the fleet. Thermal sights to replace the passive intensification sights and the AN/VSS-2 S/L. ERA over the frontal quarter. M256 replace the M150. 8. Production would have been phased in from 1975 to 1983, with over 3,600 produced. Alternate history is fun when you don't have to deal with an angry Congress just after we abandoned RVN.
Thank you
This is an unbelievably valuable video. I commend you on your diligent and thorough research, as well as your clear, detailed, and unabashedly honest presentation 😊
I’m not sure whether or not this has been the intended purpose of your presentations overall, but it has done much to validate the conclusion that my veteran father told me long ago: the military makes mistakes which are rightly publicized for the benefit of the public, but it’s not populated by idiots.
A have a couple of old references, such as "Taschenbuch der Panzer" from 1976 and "Jane's World Armored Fighting Vehicles" by Christopher F. Foss also published 1976. On page 88 is the entry for the XM-1. On page 24 - 26 is the entry for the Leopard 2. There is a picture of a Leopard 2 prototype with the L7 105mm gun. The pictures of the Leopard 2 prototypes do not look anything like what the Leopard 2A2 production models look like. Both tanks went through a progressive series of developments. Both were designed against similar BUT NOT exactly the same. The Germans emphasized mobility and firepower over protection. The Americans emphasized protection and mobility over firepower. The later Challenger emphasized firepower and protection over mobility. This why the Leopard 2AV did not meet the US Army's requirements. This is why the MBT-70 was a constant battle between the German and American design teams. The requirements of the two armies were to diverse to meet with a single mtank design.
I am not aware of the Bundesheer or Krauss-Maffei ever showing prospective crews videos of the M1 prototypes having their bustle penetrated and the ammo going off WITHOUT fire passing through the armored bulkheads into the crew compartment.
I feel inlove with this channel at 1:27
a new Dalek14mc video Hallelujah
Wow, great video. And I thought that I know everything about M1....I was wrong. :-)
Once upon a time, ConeofArc put up a video claiming the M1 was nothing but a copy of the Leopard 2. I commented using Hunnicutt and Zaloga and other references that this was BS. Soon after the video disappeared from his site. This is why I pay no attention to any videos he posts or is involved in.
Red Effect is another bum
@@DeltaAssaultGaming no shit he is a russian shill
Is there a reupload of this? I’m kinda curious to see it
Not surprised since ConeofArc got tricked by a Chieftain april fools gag about the T28 serving in the Korean war.
By the way, Chrysler sold its defence division in 1982 to General Dynamics.
What was the name you used in the intro
My new favorite hobby is staring at Abrams footage for the lil farts out the back from the filter cleaner jet. She go poot lmao.
What is the song called that played at 24:44
It’s one of the songs from Wargames DEFCON 1. It’s a PS1 game. The soundtrack was never officially released, but you could listen to the music if you popped the game CD into any player. I believe it’s called “track 5” on UA-cam.
Sometimes you just have to let it all out
I came here because of Spookston's video, and I subscribed because your video was excellent (turns out there is some nuance in things, and we probably don't know as much as we think we do, 40 or more years after the actual events).
Also...Matsimus was like an E4 for a minute, so his content is that he just talks about shit he sees on videos? It's really cringe.
He's not the worst thing ever, he's okay.
Just a nitpik. Tank and Automotive Command under the Army Materiel Command (AMC), TAACOM is pronounced with the upper vowel, TAAACOM.
I was sent by spooky boy. Good job dabbing on Blacktail, he's a joke.
Glad you're still alive and kicking. Granted we chat on discord lol. You do my old girl proud.
Watched 2 vids from Cone of Arc, and I thought his videos were too vague, not a whole lot of references provided to back up his "facts"
Example?
@@Seth9809 For example, I haven’t seen too much shred of evidence stating why the Osorio is better than the Abrams. The lobbying could be true, sure. However, for what I see online, the Abrams is better in mobility and armor from what I seen
@@m1a1abramstank49 Did he say otherwise?
@@Seth9809 I mean, what he said is what he said. The only things he states were better from the Osorio were the FCS, which would be overturned quite quickly. I don’t know why you’re supporting cone of arc
So awesome to see you back Dalek14mc. Speaking of Abrams, did you see the new AbramsX by General Dynamics?
Ooh, what does the X bring to the table? Better optics? Engines?
@@patchouliknowledge4455 hybrid powertrain to give greater range for one thing. 3 men instead of 4 men operation for a second. I think some more carbon fibre usage in the frame. Manless turret as well.
It's a shame how despite how good this video is that the false narrative of the Abrams copying the Leopard is still more popular just because it serves to elevate German tank design...something that is annoyingly common. People think anything German is just inherently better for some odd reason.
Actually i saw the circle on the m1a1 and was wondering why it was there before a2 were made
On the matter of guns there is an intresting video made by armoured archives: ua-cam.com/video/lwHrocEOCiI/v-deo.html
bro drops 6 fire videos and just dips... please come back
I’m trying…
talk about the new AbramsX
abrum :D
Come back make more videos!
YO HE MADE A VIDEO?
I’ve only seen you in other peoples comments recently lmao.
Spookston vid
I like the small cameo from LazerPig.
I really just want to make a joke about how people are either German Bootlickers, mad that they aren’t great at everything or people that don’t like the US Military or US itself trying to downplay every accomplishment they had because they don’t want to admit how good the US is.
However I feel like this all comes from sources ignorance rather than flat out hatred (for most anyway), like since I never go too deep into the “Tank Fandom”, I never even realized people were calling something that from my point of view, look more like half brothers than the same chassis (like almost all of the T-54 and above series)
It’s interesting to watch this video after watching Spookstons one and seeing how crazy the claims are
Edit: it hurts to hear a UA-camr I know like ConeofArc being so quick to claim Political Conspiracy while not even providing what the XM1 copied from the Leopard prototype, I like him but man is he like base line when it comes to tank knowledge
You're also ignoring that Euros want to stan Europe, Germany has a cleaner track record in terms of not couping anyone since 1945, that Russia is more focused on saying America sucks, and China is more focused on saying America sucks.
@@Seth9809 my dude, saying Germany has a cleaner track record has literally no point in this discussion as last time I check, WarCrimes amount don’t equal if someone thinks a tank is good or bad (Because then Russia would’ve never had an illusion of power with their mass tank force before the Ukraine War and any new one coming out would be called a copycat of the lass one).
Most of these “ignoring” just seem like “Oh they are from other country so they must hate American made stuff already.” When I’m pretty sure the people in this video besides straight up Germans, are either a New Zealander, Australian and/or American. You know, 1/3 of them being actually European and closer to America which if we go by your logic, will Stan more for them if not stabbing for their own built tanks.
Also including Russia and China is also pointless as it wasn’t Russian News Media that did notable damage to American made stuff, it was the Reformers who did damage, an American group because Americans watch and listen to Americans more than places that don’t speak their language first hand.
Overall, I disagree with your statement and will stick to my original opinion.
I used to like coneofarc until I realized he wasn’t very knowledgeable with armored vehicles. Now he does videos on the most obscure stuff and no one watches them.
Actually the first tank with a thermal sight was the M60A3 TTS introduced in 1978. Also the Swiss chose the Leopard 2 in 1988 before the end of the Cold War. The deciding factor was the cheaper service life logistics as the Swiss were going to build most of their Leopard 2 and Germany was across the border.
In regard to the L/44 to L/55 and why the US didn’t upgrade.
There isn’t a need to upgrade.
The DU APFSDS rounds fired from US tanks have better penetrating performance than the Tungsten ammunition used by Germany.
So in order to get the same amount of penetration from the ammunition, Germany had to make the tank gun longer (this resulting in the L/55)
The US didn’t have a need to upgrade their existing tanks and making new tanks with an upgraded gun since the current gun+ammo did plenty well enough. Unnecessarily waste of money to upgrade.
Once again proving, DU ammunition is better.
Another partial reason for the longer gun is increased long range accuracy, the US likely didn’t see the increase of accuracy as big enough to bother to upgrade though.
@@spyran5839 Yup, upgrading costs money. And when you have literally thousands of Abrams to Upgrade… that shits extreme.
So any gains in accuracy are pretty much not worth swapping the guns.
New models (Like the GD teased one) might have a new gun since it’s easy to build new ones like that.
However, it’s probably better to just start the process of Upgrading to a 130mm boomstick instead.
@@spyran5839 This reasoning bothers me. Do we know, data point for data point, that it does? Like, mechanical accuracy, not just a higher velocity making it easier to hit stuff. Actual dispersion measurements?
A lot of people think longer barrels in normal guns=more accurate, but if the projectile is being stabilized correctly (it encounters enough revolutions of rifling to get the necessary spin) this is basically entirely untrue and other factors, mostly consistency related ones, impact accuracy.
This isn't a rifled gun, but all of the factors that impact accuracy should be pretty similar (how evenly powder burns, quality control of the barrel itself and imperfections, the ability to acquire the appropriate spin from the projectile's fins, consistency from round to round in powder load and projectile construction and general ammunition quality control, aerodynamic forces upon exiting the barrel)
I don't know what an extra meter or whatever of barrel would do that would positively impact any of these things. It makes a couple of them harder, since the barrel is longer and it needs to be a little beefier to be as rigid to deal with heat and droop.
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 You have to keep in mind that quality control on most NATO equipment especialy tanks used by the bigger militaries is pretty good.
Most NATO tanks also have an MRS system to measure any barrel bend extremely precisely, so I'm pretty sure Rheinmetall do the necessary quality controll to provide wanted accuracy.
@@spyran5839 Oh I don't doubt they achieved roughly or literally the same standard, I just don't see specifically the barrel length alone improving accuracy.
The factors I mentioned are simply the challenges those advanced systems are necessary to counteract
Have you tried talking about tank obsolescence
What?
@@russkatherealoriginal6904 it’s been a running topic ever since Russian tanks have been dying left and right in Ukraine
@@m1a1abramstank49 that's russain tanks look at iraq it's always the russain tanks being destroyed all the time it's there design abrams is a real tank with real armor and firepower
@@cortney3280 Well I want to see what he thinks, and honestly more words need to be put out on how this is incorrect
@@m1a1abramstank49 honestly never made sense to me obsolescence means you found something that does the tank's job better not that you can destroy the tank the aircraft carrier did the job of the battleship better thus making battleships obsolete
I am glad I found this. I've listened to people talk about how the Leopard 2 is better than that Abrams basically all day today, lol.
epic
Goddamn i missed your videos, before lazerpig, scottish koala, spookston and others, there you were making videos shitposting over the F35 red flag sweep, and putting the zumwalt’s development in context.
Awesome video! Glad spookston mentioned you. Nothing wrong with tackling misinformation on such a matter. Don't feed the trolls :).
i guess it doesn't help on abrams case that the leopard just looks sleek and cooler to your average joe, then the average reaction of people on abrams is iraq and "just a tank" personally I just like the abrams better, he looks chonky but boy he made my COD days and Battlefield days awesome plus that guy is going strong until this day with numerous battle proven technologies and experience on the field.
Keep it up and you might go the way of lazerpig ignored for upwards of a year and then spontaneously jump in subscription count
about history of abrams vs leopard, people belive in many popular myths or are influenced by people who are very reaching (I mean they reach to their listeners very easily due to their speaking skils, or due to stuidity of listeners) and generaly this popular myths are more in favour of leopard. This myths come from false portraying of ww2 and germanophilia(love for germany) and propaganda german and american after ww2 How the small germany almost defeated those pesky soviets, thats why we need them now etc. i think it's also kinda hipsta thinking that german tanks are the best its like this weeb shit "hey i know history and german tanks were best in the world in ww2, bet you didn't nkow that( false of cpourse) and their are the best now as well". Wheras history is very different from what popular tv channels tell . Fun fact from developement of leopard 2 vs abrams, that i don't know if you mention in the video, beacuse i post this coment after watching jkust the intro to have unchanged opinion. So during developement of leopard 2 germans didn't have their own technology of composite armour since they were only coming back into building tanks after ww2 so they decided they will cooperate with british, but didn't care for them and they thought all british designs are shit, but they only cared about British composite armour technology. As soon as they learned(or rather stole) from british howe to make composite armour they abandoned joint project with british and set off to make leopard 2 on their own. So thats gertmany for you. Also this "amaizing leopard 2 modern era bettlefield tank" was satrted to be produced in what like 1980 and since than seen a lot of upgrades in terms of its armour but early versions had firest generation german(stolen) composite armour that was worse than what t72 tanks had in their base version , and much worse if you add the ERA that is a must have for t72 nowadays. So to this day there are leopard 2 (germany eagerly dumps them into other 3rd world countries like Poland when they sold them 200 old leopard 2's) that have armour much worse than t72 with era. And at time that germans were stealing armor technology from british americans already had their own composite armour technology whioch was like 1-2 generations ahead of german and british, so if you compare abram,s and leopard produced in the same year abrams will always have much much better armour and thats kind of insider knowloadge that people praising leopard 2 dont want to hear.
if you know polish language (probably you don't) there is very good Polish tanks expert that talsk about hte story of abrams vs leopard2 channel name is Wolski o Wojnie. He also mentions this whole deal with leopard 2 AV and how it went in terms of testing Leopard 2 AV vs abrams prototypres. And how the germans tried to cheat during tests, and obviously the whole "tests" were made because americans just wanted to know what their competition was up to . here is link to channel ua-cam.com/video/cQWhKwGxL6I/v-deo.html
I have to agree. I'll be interested to hear what the Poles think when they compared their Leopard 2's to their new Abrams
Bruh, USE PARAGRAPHS!
Sweden took the Leopard II and modified it a lot, made it a better tank, according to the Ukrainians.
I was in the Army as a Medic back in the day. I did get to drive a M-60 once. The rest of the time I had a M113-A1 serving with the 40th Tank Battalion at Fort Carson. With the Russia / Ukraine thing getting Very serious.. there is a lot more interest in what equipment each side is using.... Here it is Jan 2023 and I am just now looking at what advantages might be had by the combatants... There is the problem of training, fuel, terrain and ammo etc. of course.. With todays Drone and Satellite tech. I see the bigger problem as using 1970's, 80's era, designed, built and now old upgraded Tank platforms being very vulnerable... Apparently howitzers and Drones go well together.. I am not a fan of war and destruction, lives lost. but am trying to stay informed with real information, Not just the MSM. So I appreciate this video... lol, I am also a big fan of Half-Life, been playing since day 1...
You should delete the video after saying that Comanche is "wasteful spending". Such sacrilege should not go stealthy.
Armor Cast has points in his video “Your Favorite Tanks sucks: Leopard 2”
In regards to the leopard fire sale of the early 2000's one of its main reasons were the fact that leo2a4 was found out to be incapable of pen the front of a T-80U while it could go through the front of the leo2 no problem.
The claim that tungsten (wolfram) rounds used in Leopard 2 cannot penetrate the Russian T-90 or the modernized version of the T-80 comes from the April 2015, Welt am Sonntag. It isn't true. Sweden evaluated the Leopard 2A5 against the T-80U and rejected T-80U. The Swedish Leopards being Stridsvagn 122. Having evaluated the T-80U they also went on to lease and later purchase 160 Leopard 2A4. Obviously, even the older A4's were deemed to be more than a match for T-80Us. The main reason why so many Leopard's were sold was to get them off the books as Germany was drastically cutting its defense budget. It's why they went from have an excellent army in 1989 to the dog and pony show they have now. You might also wonder why the Ukraine really wants Leopards rather than more T-80UD's.
Seeing Ukraine war today I don't think that this source is reliable. It's true that we have seeing not as much tank to tank combat now but we have seen older URSS munitions being used by both ukraine and Russia tanks I also believe that the claim is more propaganda than fact.
germany had to sell 80% of its 2000 leopard 2 + its 1800 leopard 1 or scrap them due to the "conventional forces in europe" treaty, wich forced EVERY european nation to reduce stocks of heavy weapons to peace time levels (meaning like 300-400 MBT´s for a large country)
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Also they slashed military spending and were bad at keeping track of money.
@@Seth9809 the main reason was the required reduction of heavy weapons and armed forces in europe. the spending in fact was not cut that much, alot of the fniancing problems of the bundeswehr come from nepotism and corruption in the procurement process
You and LazerPig are my favourite AFV sacred cow murderers.
0:32
Can't relate. I live in America, not the People's Republic.
Cool Video. TBH I´m Leo fan boy. I get trigered when i see comparation that are not from the same period. Both the Leopard and the Abrams are some old ladies. So like comparing the SEP V3 to the A4 or the A7+ to the M1A1 dont make anny sence.
Also i saw an article that the Abrams was bad, because Yemmen rebels tok it out or when Turkey lost a bunch of Leopard A4. Maybe, just maybe Sadi amd Turkey didnt use there tanks proparly.
I also find i hilarius when i se "the Armata T-14 will destroy all western tanks" hmmmm not realy. Mutch comes down to crew traning and larg scale excersices and of cource mantinance. Oh yeah may 40 T14 wont be doing so great when they need to defend a line and in front fo them there is a cople of tousends Abrams and 1000 Leopards???? Shermans did strugle aganst Panters in WW2 but not so much when there was several Shermans agains one Panter or even a Tiger.
Abrams and Leopards are both some of the best tanks out there both have there pros and cons from the start to now and in the furure too. I do belive that the seeing what each other made of improvments keep both on the edge and make them better. And not to exclude the French or the British MBT´s either. for example the famos chopen armor is from the Chalanger.
The leopard 2 a7 looks cooler i think. These are facts, because I say so.
Looks don't mean Jack in warfare and the Abrams x looks better than the 2a7
Are tanks obsolete?
Tanks as a whole?, no. But this current generation of tanks? Yes they are. Current gen tanks weren't designed with smart or top attack munitions in mind next generation ones will probably have things such as active protection systems and the ability to launch their own drones. But to say tanks are obsolete because of ATGMs or drones is as dumb as saying infantry are obsolete because of machineguns and artillery
@@shadewolf0075 current gen tanks have had active procreation systems for a long time
There are six videos about this by top content creators.
Both will , soon , fighting a REAL battle vs Russia . We'll see what they are made of
And the Leopard's coming up short thanks to minefields.
Sadge.
Bro this is old news.
No, it’s not.
@@dalek14mc it is 💀
@@dalek14mc your acting like we don't already that the Abrams has some parts from Germany and the leopard tank. It has nothing to do with politics.
@@thegreattanker1566 No, I’m not. Quit looking for an excuse to complain.
6:50
I think its a fact that the US would never took a not US tank, the poltice on the side is just to strong, same why the US is not geting airbus refuling plain even if they are better.
i could be worng about it but the US is protecive of ther arms proudution.
and i know just one data point but is ther a majore US weapon systeme after world war 2 that not from the US.
and it was great that the leo 2 was not fiting into the deal,
yes this sound a littel like the leo defender.
20:00 i shuld finsh the video before i comment.
Great work as always!
While the points you make are true the decision to choose B-767 over the A-330 was not straightforward , USAF initially chose the Airbus plane but the process had some problems they had "forgotten" to inform Boeing on requirements changes which prompted Boeing to go to GAO who held their appeal,so the competition had restarted around this time some early incident occurred with the A330 tanker ( iirc it's boom fell down) but that with some other factors prompted B-767 winning the competition. To add to that iirc A-330 tanker was deemed harder to modify ( new boom system + shit ton of new electronics) . Ultimately there were politicians behind both Boeing and Airbus
harrier 2
The US Marine Corps just replaced all it's rifles with German rifles
@@stars7744 xD
AT4 and Carl Gustaf are Swedish.
HAHA! I'M THE THOUSANDTH LIKE!
Someone is salty about the Germans. The Abrams today still uses a German gun, so in the race of who copied who, Germans are ahead.
Are you really turning this into a competition over who copied what first?
And the Germans use an American fcs
finally the man is back, now gayer than ever
Pierre Sprey prides himself on being a gadfly.. it's hard to know if he expects to be taken seriously.. he's made statements about the F-35 which turned out to be wrong but he's never let "being wrong" stand in the way of "being right".. in his final analysis, he's "always right".. probably "right-wing" too... no weapons system is "absolutely perfect", but neither is he.. except in his own eyes..
LOL! Oh god. Please don't bring me into this. I couldn't really care less if a Abrams is better or worse than another. I love Abrams :-) ... can we just leave it at that? Everyone makes fun of challenger 2 and couldn't care less...
Are we now doing the 'you're wrong and I am going to make content to disprove it and expose you' game 😞 We all make mistakes.
Take care
"Are we now doing the 'you're wrong and I am going to make content to disprove it and expose you' game"
He specifically said he's not doing that.
@@jic1 I didn’t actually said he was… I was asking more rhetorically if it was something the community was starting to get into
@@_Matsimus_ when you make half baked contend farm-ish videos, the community will call you out so don't being a butthurt loser. Simple as.
If you Believe in Jesus Christ, you will be Saved by Grace Alone, John 3:16, KJV......
“I get more ass than a toilet seat”
-Nate Dogg 1:01, Curtain Call: The Greatest Hits.
2 cents: don’t sound so triggered, slow down, otherwise sounds like an emotional response to the other videos, with own sprinkles of “semi-truths”.
In other words, you want me to sound like a robot.
@@dalek14mc absolutely
Plz no! this content is so honest that it needs to continue! REEEE
Roasted.
next you'll be telling us the AK47 was in no way influenced by the StG44
differing details do not negate conceptual similarities
Aks more of a garand than a stg
It was clearly *influenced* by the StG44, but has almost nothing in *common* with it besides concept and external appearance. The similarities between the M1 and Leopard 2 are almost certainly explained by both tanks having their roots in the ill-fated MBT-70 program.
@@jic1 that's what I'm talking about, the concept
@@josephunderwood1875 The concept of an assault rifle existed before the STG
Design wise the Abrams has many noticeable differences blowout panels a larger turret the driver being in the center rather than offset
this is like saying that my dog is blacker than your black dog, abrams needs a fleet of fuel tankers to keep it going
Broke boy mindset
Diesel engines produce worse smog and are harder to repair.
APU cucks your argument once for all.
A-10 go brrrt. I know it's not relevant to the video, but I'm getting some serious Lazarpig vibes from you. Just hope you're not some Ukie apologist who thinks the Elensky regime has any choice but to lose against the Russian colossus and who was celebrating the Kerch bridge attack before the Russians reminded everyone in the biggest troll move ever that they're still perfectly capable of bombing the country to the stone age like the the US would only more with arty than airpower. I can handle being an F-35 apologist because despite the disgusting wonderwaffte claims about it, which is what really turns people away from it, it's actually a very, very, VERY... okay... multi-roll fighter. It just doesn't fill the particular niche of the A-10 much like the A-10 doesn't fill the particular niche of Helicopters or AC-130 gunships.
I'd say it's a very capable multirole fighter, especially in the "soft" stats like pilot workload, esm capabilities and sensor suite and integration! Don't call yourself an F-35 apologist, since people who say it's shit are lying
Leopard >>> M1
Very compelling.
Bob semple >>> leopard
@@spartanx9293 very clearly
@@spartanx9293 Now that is an undeniable statement. Nothing beats Bob Semple
It is 'prideful stupidity' that the Abrams model 2 failed behind 3 other tanks in the EU 'tank superbowl' tests. While you're maybe rightfully opinionated... i am sorry you have not personally inspected, and seen how the Abrams were destroyed in Iraqi (3 methods that proved effectively to kill the abrams and most of it's crew). Of PRIMARY humble truth; both the Pentagon USAR generals, and Chrysler and other developers are more into 'pride and profit' than 'in the field robust' effective tank systems. as for shared tech; certain agreements between UK, Germany and US; made for the joint-like development of 'elements' of each of their tanks. They also, each, researched first hand and applied Israeli crew-survival applied technologies prior to the Abrams 2-series were put into mass production. It is not as much as 'copying or stealing' from allies each the other; as confidential 'agreements' to standardization for all US-EU developers for tanks and not 'bastardizations'. Of critical to the ongoing Abrams 3; is how they shipped back destroyed Abrams from iraq; and are applying solutions to those many losses Note; most destroyed Abrams were not during Iraq 1 or 2 wars; but insurgent actions AND by one specific 'test destroy' secret event in Bagdag by a non-Iraq military team (yes, you may never have realized this) meaning, other than that foreign successful missile destroy of a Abrams2; most others were destroyed by 3 methods by insurgent groups in Iraq. As well, fuel consumption and high maint. plague 'longevity-in-field survival' of the Abrams and Challenger both. PROOF of mutually joint development standardization: the barrel, crew survival and 'elements' of similar armor applications.
What does any of this have to do with the video? First of all, I don’t know why you’re talking about combat losses as if that was something I was making excuses for. Nobody is claiming the Abrams is invincible. Combat losses weren’t even mentioned in the video.
It’s funny how you regurgitate the same claim that it was Chrysler and “the generals” that wanted to line their pockets as the reason for the Chrysler prototype's success, when it was THE ARMY that chose the Chrysler design for its engine.
It appears that you came here with a bunch of pre-scripted talking points, with no regard as to whether it had anything to do with the video.
Also... What’s the “Abrams series 2?” That’s not a thing. Who has ever referred to any of the Abrams variants as “The model 2” or “Abrams 2 series?” You’re just making things up.
"as for shared tech; certain agreements between UK, Germany and US; made for the joint-like development of 'elements' of each of their tanks. They also, each, researched first hand and applied Israeli crew-survival applied technologies prior to the Abrams 2-series were put into mass production. It is not as much as 'copying or stealing' from allies each the other; as confidential 'agreements' to standardization for all US-EU developers for tanks and not 'bastardizations'."
You do realize that I said this in the video, right?
Europoor spergy wall of schizo.