Why The M1 Abrams Beat The Leopard 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 жов 2022
- Decal affiliate link: tinyurl.com/42thwzv3
Dalek's video: • M1 Abrams vs Leopard 2...
In the 1970s, NATO countries were trying to develop new and powerful main battle tanks to counter the looming threat of Soviet armor. After the failure of the MBT-70 program, the United States and Germany went their separate ways to develop their own vehicles. However, in the interest of interoperability, Germany offered their new Leopard 2 MBT as a competitor to the Army's XM1 prototypes. A competition and a scandal ensued, with the Leopard eventually being withdrawn. Many people nowadays speculate that the Leopard 2 should have won and that the M1 Abrams only won because of favoritism, politics, economic grounds, or a combination of the three. After doing some digging, I do not believe this was the case.
Sources:
U.S. Army XM-1 Tank Program: Hearings Before the Committee on Armed Services
MAJOR SYSTEMS ACQUISITION REFORM - ARMY XM-1 TANK PROGRAM
Report of the Oversight Hearings on the Status of the Army XM-1 Tank Program
Hearings on Military Posture and H.R. 6495
Department of Defense Appropriations for 1981
ADA267030 “Prepare the Army for War; A Historical Overview of the Army Training and Doctrine Command, 1973-1993.”
ADA141313 “COMPETITION AS AN ACQUISITION STRATEGY: IMPACT OF COMPETITIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON PROCUREMENT COSTS
ADA039673 “An Examination of the XM-1 Tank System Acquisition Program in a Peacetime Environment”
ADA592510 “Big Five Lessons for Today and Tomorrow”
ADA105123 “Collaborative Development of Main Battle Tanks; Lessons from the U.S.-German Experience, 1963-1978”
ADA109202 “PERSONNEL AND TRAINING SUBSYSTEM INTEGRATION IN AN ARMOR SYSTEM”
Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank by R.P. Hunnicutt
M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1993-2018 by Steven J. Zaloga
Camp Colt to Desert Storm, The History of U.S. Armored Forces by George F. Hofmann
Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank 1979-98 by Michael Jerchel
PSAD-78-1 Department of Defense Consideration of West Germany's Leopard as the Army's New Main Battle Tank
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Songs used (in order from first to last):
Subnautica - Into The Unknown
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Sound mods:
Epic Thunder (Pre-release)
Gunner HEAT PC Crew Voices Mod (Personal, go play the game: gunnerheatpc.com/ )
Sponsor: apexpartner.app/redirect/spoo...
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: / spookston
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: See my Patreon page.
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#warthunder #tanks #tankhistory - Ігри
Dalek's video: ua-cam.com/video/7gSiRZNtI-A/v-deo.html
And since people are apparently confused by this; the title is very clearly in reference to the XM1 program specifically. This is not a "M1 Abrams > Leopard 2" video. If it was, the operative word of the title would be the present tense "beats", not the past tense "beat."
Thank you
my suggestion is renaning the tittle "why US choose M1 abrams over Leopard 2"
What about the concept tank KF-51 tank?
can you make a video like this on the brazilian tank Osório? it was apparently better than the abrams
The Abrams X retains a 120mm caliber main gun, do you think they will go for a 130mm like Rheinmetall or a 140mm like Nexter in the future, as the same question of growth potential is back on the table ?
I think many people get too held up on “The Best Tank” when each one is designed for different desires and usage. There’s a reason the US pours money into the Abrams and chose it as a platform. The US does care about having everything serve them best, so there’s going to be clear reasons for decisions.
But what is the doctrine
@@coolsalmon485 oil
How is using gas turbine with bad air filtration in the FUKING DESERT with sand the best decision
Gas turbine is best descision for Arctic cold environment for northern Russia.
@@coolsalmon485 strategic mobility
@Relics 275 combined arms is also big.
I find it crazy the M1 Abrams is 50 years old, that would be like using a panther tank in the 90s, shows how far tank development went during the cold war but its kinda faltered a little now.
Hard to upgrade a tank a lot when the most common threat it faces (50 yo RPG’s) haven't changed in half a century. If there’s a minor land war between let’s say Israel and Iran, one backed with new American tanks the other new Russian tanks, I think we would see both sides realize flaws in their designs and new stuff drawn up and built really fast.
Aha! You would think that. But the fact is, we have become too good at tank design. Remember the M1911? The pistol that was adopted in... 1911? Yeah to this day we still use the same short-recoil operation design in almost every pistol chambered in 9mm and larger. It's not that we started sucking at gun design, it's just we found the most efficient design available (META, if you will) for handgun design, and we've just tinkered on it for 110+ years and continuously improved it. Same for tanks, we've started to reach the point where we've gotten so good at it that it's getting hard to make giant improvements, just little ones that can be even done in upgrade kits. (THAT IS, unless you are Russia. They're kinda... special. Developmentally delayed, if you will.)
@@g.williams2047 Let's not forget that pretty much everything is different in SEP V3 from what it was in M1. Abrams got upgraded, T72/80/90 too... but not that much - especially now lacking high-tech parts. Russians have T14 though... but it's hard to believe stats given on paper.
Not quite the same tank. While overall form is the same, there is plenty different where it counts. Armour isn't the same as what it started off with advances in composites, add-on packages, better terminal effects understanding to not only improve overall protection but to face changing threats. You have advanced optics, gun stabilisation, remote weapon stations, hard/soft kill systems, threat detectors/counter measures, computer targeting, integrated battlefield information in every tank. Bigger gun, better ammo. Better engine. 50 years of institutional knowledge has improved effectiveness.
As for thee the likes of T14, given it only have enough for parades, it would have to be some kind of super tank with the best crew ever to match the numbers advantage that far older tanks would represent let alone an M1 or ATGM behind every hill. The thing is that if the T14 is actually that "Good" countries would be lining up to buy it. Due to the lack of orders *Insert reason here* the Russian government can't afford it as they can't scale the cost and they don't believe in it enough to buy enough themselves to get the unit cost down. The paper spec for the T14 might as well be fan fic given how absurd they are.
It hasn't faltered it's just become far harder to advance now because the tank is at the cutting edge of the technology it uses and thanks to the future proof design of modern tanks, most things even major components like armament and powertrain can be swapped out for the latest and greatest quite easily so they are always up to date
It's like the current smart phone market how it slows simply because the Industry is now at the bleeding edge of the tech they use and most major upgrades have already been done at least for now
Tanks are developed to meet specific needs and criteria. The M1 is the perfect example, much as the M4 Sherman was for its era. And when those choices are made, they are made knowing what the effects will be or if there is the ability to upgrade and improve in the future.
Yes but the m4 is shit
@@jrtu1177
Unless, of course, you're playing War Thunder, in which case the M4 is near invincible
@@jrtu1177 nope it isn't
The M4 was good enough to defeat the vast majority of threats it encountered. It was cost effective enough to be produced in large quantities without crippling the economy of the nation that built it. It was reliable and maintainable enough to serve on literally every continent on the planet except Antarctica, often a long long way away from support facilities or the factories that built it.
What more do you want from a tank?
@@jrtu1177You do not understand the magnitude of wrong you are in.
Side armor is actually a very important thing for tank survivability as if an artillery shell lands just near the tank, the crew can simply die because of the shrapnel
Russian tanks have like double the side armor of nato tanks. China has less than Russia but more than nato tanks.
Russian tanks have more side armor on paper, but Nato tanks have historically been ridiculously more durable in comparison. There's dozens of videos of Abrams tanks shrugging off side shots from RPGs
@@Phantom-bh5ru Sound highly non-credible for me
Considering abundance of footage of russian tanks getting shredded in Ukraine
@@JK-oq9cl always excuses with you lot.
Meanwhile T-72s given to Assad got slapped with those same RPGs
@@JK-oq9cl the ones thay regularly destroyed vehicles with less armor
Doctrin would play a major role too.
Germany just needed a tank that can duell other tanks, there wasn't a need for resisting ATGM teams on Fulda gap.
US needed a well rounded tank for a lot of scenarios and then ATGMs are really much more common then other MBTs.
Every country produces the best tank that they can.
Thinking otherwise would mean some random armchair general is much smarter then the defense ministry of a whole country.
Which clearly is very unlikely.
Even something as a cheap upgrade as T-72B3 mod 2016 is the best solution for the given resources and necessary capabilities.
It just seems that the resources were clearly not enough to make a good product, but that isn't always the fault of the designers.
There is a simple answer why abrmas was chose "its american designed and built". If u look at NATO standardization (especially how USA dealt with a united rifle round that was already developed and nearly adopted by 4 european nations) most have come down to USA equipment or rounds as USA never likes to use any other natiosn equipment (only if its wastly superior to their own and wil force domestic variant with their economic might).
@@woldemyr5234 except leopard 2 is the most widely adopted tank in NATO.
@@woldemyr5234 If you watch the video Spookston addresses this point where the Leopard was going to be built under US license if the US picked it.
@@nathaneddy502 user wise.
The US alone still has more Abrams in storage than Leopards was ever build.
But maybe the it speaks for itself that the Abrams basically lost any major competition when it came to buyers to the Leo. 2 lol
@@ijn4438 U didnt get the point clearly (ofc USA would have local production). It didnt mater to USA/Pentagon/Commision that it would be built in USA, as it wasnt USA designed after the failure of MBT-70 project, they couldnt go and say the German design was more "moderately" succcesful in duties.
Meanwhile australia picked the Abrams because it was the one that was in stock at the time, we would’ve had to pre-order chally 2s or wait until Germany whipped up enough spare parts for our batch of Leo 2s. The US just so happened to have everything ready when we went shopping
I mean, it's pretty easy to have all that already available when you've got the US's military spending budget...
@@Abizinator hell, we got hulls in desert fields just so that the factory workers wouldn't be unemployed. Just get the wiring and post hull builders and that order will be done before a year is over.
And then we had them modified so with air conditioning so now they have a nice cool temperature of the ambient air outside. 'Oi Bruce, what's the temp outside? 41 mate. Fuck me dead, couldn't they install something better?'
@@Marth667 good old NBC, at least the tankies get that, ASLAV aren’t allowed to use their fuckin AC
You just happened to shop when the US was ready
The Leopard and Abrams are both very good tanks, idk why people can't agree that they where made for different types of combat and roles, along with expectations. It's like trying to compare the M4 Sherman to the Panzerkampfwagen V Panther. The M4 was made to be smaller in every aspect, (less armor smaller gun, etc.) to be shipped across the world if needed. The Panther didn't need to be shipped across oceans, only by trains when needed, and majority of the time they would drive a short distance to the battle field so they could be bigger, have more armor and a bigger gun. Same with the Leopard and Abrams. The USA wanted a tough tank with lots of armor, along with it being slower. The Germans wanted a tank for potential war in Europe. So the Leopard naturally had to be lighter to cross more bridges, and be more mobile. I love both in their own ways. P.S. , Spookston, would you mind making a video on the Kanpfpanzer-51?
There is also the aspect of what they are expecting as opposition, Germany would obviously prioritize tank battles as the Soviet/Russia went heavy on them. USA would obviously prioritize a "balanced" tank since its expect to fight all over the world against different doctrines. This kinda applies to the M4 and Panther of your example quite well too.
@@LtAlguien the M1 and Leo 2 were both made with fighting the Warsaw pact in mind. The US just saw the threat ATGMs would play a lot sooner then Germany did because believe it or not the US rarely went beyond the western hemisphere, Europe and east Asia during the cold war
@@shadewolf0075 ... Did u just say that USA saw the ATGM threath sooner... when Leopard 1 had no armors specifically bcs it saw ATGMs and other man portable anti tank weapons so saturated in the battelfield that it was designed as a moblie gun carrier that could at max suffer a 30mm autocannon from the front.
@@woldemyr5234 the US during the M1's development was concerned with ATGMs like the Kornet and anti-tank rockets. Granted it's not designed for a javelin or Nlaw but yes the Abrams was made to protect its crew from ATGMs in use during the 80s
You mixed up some things. Sherman was made for reliability, comfort and on some stages for better anti-tank probabilities. Panther was made for making crew blind and demoralised by cramped space, also frying their asses with it's stupid transmission
People compare tanks by seeing which is better at killing tanks, not by if they do their job well.
Challenger series is a perfect example of a “bad” tank that is used in a way that negates its weakness and was picked because of its pretty significant advantages (like use of HESH, given its an Infantry support tank by design).
Something something German superiority compared to a Cromwell and Sherman.
I mean the gulf war literally saw large scale tank battles. Not to mention Israel's wars with the Arab coalition. It's not like tank on tank combat is anywhere near dead. It's just that western foes have literally been badly equipped guerrilla fighters and not formal armies.
About the weight limit - I wouldn't be surprised if some people involved in the project were thinking in metric and others were thinking short tons.
That actually kind of lines up. 58 metric tons converts to about 63.93 US tons, and the combat loaded Leopard 2 was 63 US tons loaded which would have been within the limits if the US wanted metric tons.
@@user-xz1ur8us5p so in other words most of the issues regarding perceived shady actions on germanys part are likely just the US not using fucking metric
@@cynicalfox190 excellent.
Hilarious if true
@@cynicalfox190 Or the Germans not understanding they are selling to a country that doesn't use fucking metric and forgot. But based on what I heard it went deeper then then that.
This whole thing (sort of) reminds of the NATO PDW cartridge trials with the FN 5.7mm and the H&K 4.6mm. The FN round performed better overall, the Germans threw a fit and the whole PDW standardization thing went tits up.
No reason trying to argue with HK, cause of you do they'll just absorb ALL of your favourite defense manufacturers
Except that wasn't the whole reason an official PDW cartridge was adopted.
There's a video on Forgotten Weapons, but to sum it up, the intention was to create a cartridge that can penetrate the CRISAT armor used by the VDV paratroopers under set parameters- Issue is, neither of them did this. For all the strengths of either cartridge both having more ergonomic firing platforms, it doesn't justify the extremely high cost of adopting a round that doesn't even do succeed in that particular parameter, it would not have been cost-effective.
That and, the US, the biggest member of NATO, wasn't at all interested, adopting a new cartridge that doesn't do more than what's already available, when only a few countries were interested, wasn't feasible. As a result, both are essentially boutique rounds.
in what world the 5.7 perform better? and 4.6 came way later into the game + the calibers where made to be able to penetrate armours that 9x19 and .45 couldnt
and AP SX for the MP7 outperforms 5.7 SS190 in armour penetration power.
Spookston should teach a online class of his own I feel like it would be a really cool thing and if it costed money I would pay for it just to learn. Thank you for another informational video spookston I always love watching these and learning something new
definitely unbiased information coming from a reliable source, no foul play at all
@@honk5468 ?
@@EVA-UNIT-13 spookston is funded by george soros and the wef, look it up
@@honk5468 🤡
@@a-10brrrrrrrrrrr72 says the idiot with a dog water plane as their username.
if you look at interior video of both tanks' turrets, it's amazing how much more cramped the Leopard 2 is. And the M1's ammo storage is vastly better both for the ergonomics of getting to it quickly, and far better for survivability due to the isolated ammo compartment with blowout panels.
The Leo2 has ammo and blow out panels in the turret too. The main difference is that it has less shells in the turret and a front hull storage.
I think the justification was that the front part, in which the Leo2 stores the hull shells, is very well protected even at the sides, moreso than the Abrams (supposedly, theres no official data). And the Abrams does suffer from a heavier turret, thats likely part of why the US is constantly trying to make the gun lighter, while the Leo2 got a heavier and longer barrel instead.
Its all trade-offs in the end. That said, the Leo2 is more cramped than the Abrams? I havent heard that before.
@@termitreter6545 bigger turret interior wise the leopard is most definitely more cramped than the Abrams
@@spartanx9293 as a leopard 2a6 crewman id like to visit the abrams if its so less cramped. Leopard definately is anything but cramped
@@taistelusammakko5088let's just say, it fit the Chieftain.
Not the tank, the youtuber, who's well over 6 ft tall, and he was extremely comfortable in it.
you're clueless because you've never been in any of them@@spartanx9293
Hey dude you going to do a video on General Dynamics Abrams x technology demonstrator it looks really cool
seconded
I'll make a video on it after AUSA 2022 ends
@@Spookston nice
Both are good, yes, but can they beat a Puma? No? Case closed. 1.0 Puma supremacy
Three are good, yes, but can they beat a Strike Drone? No? Case closed. Air supremacy
The lynx dunks on the puma
Sorry, but the A-10 and F-35 invalidate your argument
Hey. If you ever talk about new prototypes and stuff, id be curious about your opinion on the E-MBT, a mix of the hull of the Leo and the turret of the Leclerc, although that turret is barely recognizable.
Basically just a pr project.
I always wondered what the point of that was. Sure, the Leo could use better turret armor, but is it sensible to make an entire new generation of MBT from existing MBTs? Surely it would be better to make a new tank if you are going that far.
@@pilferedserenity1570 exept that it’s unlikely the current MGCS project will give us anything for about amour decade or 2. The EMBT would at best be a stopgap and a way to test new techs for the MGCS
It was to show that both companies are able to integrate their systems into one plattform.
@@Falkenlp3 yes, a technology demonstrator, like the shiny M1 thing upgrade that came out
Because, Murica.
Thanks, now I don't need to watch the video
I counter you with the M14.
They need to come out with an upgraded Bob Semple. Nothing in the world would match it.
i think i got an extra lawnmower, give me an hour or two and ill have the bob semple 2.0
@@qualitycontentchannel4443 We can make composite armor, i got some leftover bathroom tiles
@@derikWG Awesome, i have some pop-its, im sure we can band-aid those on as ERA
@@qualitycontentchannel4443 I have a lot of unused Tire compounds there. Can it be used as a part of the NERA for Bob Semple 2.0?
@@moisesezequielgutierrez of course
People just don’t seem to care about reading up on these things and just make assumptions, thanks for a well made and informative video!
I heartily agree. I guess that makes me a research nerd, but I find these types of videos very enjoyable.
Just know that Germany vetoed the adoption of the P90 despite it being better in every way against the MP7…
Could you possibly do a video on the abramx or more specifically survival cell hulls and how they can be best implemented. To me and engineer it seems like a nightmare to both have a lot of armor to protect the crew but also be forward enough in the hull to have escape hatches along with a turret and engine assembly behind you.
Abrams X would probably just be a tech demonstrator for future US tanks and not for fielding purposes
Loving the videos Spook! With regards to suggestions for new ones, I think it'd be cool if you brought a full lineup of a few tanks and other vehicles used by south Africa in War Thunder. Olifant, Rooikat, Ratel, etc.
I feel that many of these tanks get a bit overlooked in the game. Especially the Olifant.
Good video on this often-misunderstood aspect of the M-1's choice as America's tank. In a lot of the testing, the US was simply too trusting of its NATO partner in the trials. As to the turret armor, a US mechanic dropped a heavy clevis against the Leopard turret, and it resonated like a bell. He told the attending General officer who checked this and confronted the German technical reps who finally came clean that the test vehicle was way underweight and had no internal armor plates in the turrets shell. As to the engine, the Germans had a long-standing agreement with MTU Aero Engines to produce all engines of local design. They are very good engines. But for anyone who's ever been around them they are both load and have a resonance that announces their presence long before they show up.
That sounds pretty one-sided, if im gonna be frank. Some of the requirements put to the Austere Variant were also quite extreme.
Can you do a video on the new AbramsX by GD? Its a future Abrams design featuring a crewless turret. I thought that the new Abrams was gonna have a 4 man crew due to the 4 concept designs proposed a little over a year ago, but GD built a "mock up(?)" of this new version, some calling it the potential SEPv4
That would be very interesting, hoping to see a subject like that in a future video!
SepV4 already exists. AbramsX, much like Rhinemetall's new Panther concept - is a paper tank. Both are a collection of ideas and concepts for a future tank program. Neither has anything concrete, as they want those government research dollars/euros first.
It's like a concept car just an engineering exercise to show off what they can do
The GDLS AbramsX is a technology demonstrator, and will not be selected as a “replacement” for the M1A2 SEPv3 and v4, even in the future.
interesting. I thought it was a tech demonstrator cuz it didn't match the specs the US army proposed with the 4 other concepts
Sounds like the MP7 vs P90 debacle all over again.
And people still whine about it just like back then
Can you make a video about main differences in tank design between NATO and Russia? It would be interesting to know about main reasons one side makes their tanks different from the other especially now that those designs clash with each other in Ukraine
money and respect for human life.
Also not really fair comparison as there's so many types in use there that's it's really hard to tell what aspects of them have won specific engagements- but it seems that ukrainaians are wining due to better oreintation what is where. As one despised by putin's gang russian ex offcicer said "they have an observation drone in each platoon, we have in each company". Also hard to recognise specific types as ukrainians seem to put Kontakt-1 on every single type of tank that did not have any ERA beforehand- so Czech modified T-72's are almost impossible to distinguish from Polish ones (which are infirour in many mechanical aspects but got thermals and BMS installed) unless you have intimate knowlage of how each type of sighting device looks like in each subvariant.
Both Ukraine and the RF are using soviet designs, tbh there is really no such thing as a "Russian designed tank".
Here are some:
Russian tank design enforces a lower weight limit on its designs. This is largely for Logistical and Infrastructure reasons. Abram and Leopard designs have faced issues in the past and present due to their weight. This restriction on weight led to several cascading effects for Russian designs.
An earlier adoption of autoloaders. (Saves Weight)
An earlier adoption of ERA. (Protection from Shaped Charge weapons, early ERA, without the weight of steel.)
When it comes to ammunition stowage, Russians put the ammunition in the safest part of the tank to minimize the chance that it will be hit. (The same place that the M4 Sherman eventually placed its ammunition and became the safest tank of WW2.) Westerners put the ammunition in an extremely dangerous part of the tank that is likely to be hit, but mitigate that with blast doors and blowout panels. Contrary to what some will say, both Americans and Russians put plenty of effort into crew survivability. They just did it in different ways. The Russian method relies on putting the ammunition where it is least likely to be hit in the first place. The Western method relies on the blowout panels and blast doors working as they are supposed to. Neither method is foolproof.
Western Tank design tends to focus on bleeeding edge technology with relatively limited production numbers.
Russian Tank design tends to focus on "Good Enough" technology that can be mass produced.
The West will build a prototype that will test the limits of technology and then put it into production.
The Russians will build a prototype that will test the limits of technology, then dial it back a little bit so they are still quite good, but can also afford to crank out 20,000+ of them.
There are obviously exceptions for both.
Russian designs are focused on tanks being a "Battlefield Bully", where fighting other tanks only happens occasionally. HE-FRAG capability is considered extremely important. Typical Soviet tank loadout was supposed to be about 40% HE-FRAG.
Modern Western designs, for lack of a better description, are basically Tank Destroyers. They are focused on the waves of Tank v Tank combat that was supposed to take place in Europe. Their 120mm HE-FRAG capability is effectively non-existent as far as fielded ammunition. Other than SABOT, most Western 120mm tanks only have canister or a slightly modified HEAT shell that gives somewhat improved fragmentation effect. Though 120mm HE-FRAG type shells do exist, they tend to be not wildly fielded.
Now, with the impartial facts out of the way, where do I see Western design moving? I honestly see it moving towards Russian tank design philosophy. 70 ton land-ships are becoming a liability. The 40-50 ton weight range looks to be the sweet spot. Actually hitting that weight target will require Western designers to make the same sort of choices that the Russians had to make. Personally, something like the M8 Buford Light Tank scaled up to be a MBT would be a good analogue of where one might see Western MBT design going. Though there are other paths as well.
@@Crosshair84 Now just replace "Russian" with "Soviet".
Russians rely on sovjet technology
And the sovjets used cheap light tanks that they could mass produce because they had a lot of manpower but not as strong of an economy
Their tank doctrine was based on what worked in ww2 which was quantity over quality
During the cold war the sovjets didn’t invest much in tank development because it was already behind america in economy and technology so it considered its rocket and nuclear program to be the most important linchpin of national security
I know this isn't really your typical video topic, but I never fully understood how such thin armor on these modern MBTs can have such great protection against kinetic shells. I mean sure you have angles, but the speed and density of these APFSDS shells are actually insane. Alternatively, you could talk about how spall is formed, because that also doesn't make much sense when you think about the fact that the hole a kinetic shell makes is rather small. Anyways keep up the great work! I love the content
The M1 went with the 105mm because the new DU rounds were already entering war stocks in Europe for the M60 tank. The M60 would be in service for many years while the M1 was being fielded so they had to serve side-by-side. As noted, the US 105mm was comparable to the British and German 120mm. The M1 program knew that would not last, but they were colonels and generals tasked with defending Western Europe NOW, not in five or ten years, so they went with the 105mm now with the plan to upgrade to the 120mm in the near future.
I would like to do a “B-But America Bad, Other Country Good” joke but it’s like you said, tank fan boys don’t realize that Countries (mostly the ones that can build their own tanks) usually go for what they want, it’s why I doubt “They didn’t choose X because of 1 reason” claims the more I get older when it comes to military questions. 1 reason is the easiest to understand but is also the most bare bones and quickest way for someone to dismiss the entire argument.
People tend to forget that the Chrysler M1 won because both the Leo2 and GM M1 didn't provide enough crew protection with ammo in a non-isolated hull storage.
Can we all just admit that the Merkava, Abrams, Leppard, and challenger are just sexy tanks in general
“The Best Tank” debate usually fails when people forget the doctrines in which the tank was designed for…my go-to is the JGSDF’s tanks and their usage for an auto-loader and hydropneumatic suspension.
Doctrine is where people always forget the main purpose and design of the vehicle. Air, ground, or water. From there, it can be defined as good or bad. My ¢2.
Exactly. It's like a modern day version of the M4 Sherman debate.
People look at the paper stats and think that's all that matters.
They see a carefully compiled montage of tanks of "Nation X" getting blown up and conclude that the tank sucks because it got blown up. Ignoring the fact that tanks have never been invulnerable
I definitely appreciate these history oriented videos with mythbusting! I hope to see more Cold War Era vids, like, was the M60 (or Patton series at large) any good in the end? (Ask Israel)
Thanks for the shoutout!
Love your videos please make more.
Bro the command and conquer generals soundtrack taking be back! Great video
I couldn’t find Dalek’s account for several years. I’m liking this video just for that.
A LOT of people still hold on to the narrative of the US being biased towards it's own vehicle mainly because a decade earlier, the US took one of the worst decisions in regards to smalls arms development and adoption when they INTERFERED with the FAL project and turned around and adopted the M14 and soon after the M16.
which makes it perfectly understandable to be suspicious of US claims
@@delfinenteddyson9865 No, not really, especially if you try to apply it to equipment adopted decades before or after.
division yeah many people who are big fans of certain weapons or vehicles tend to go nuts whenever the us doesn't pick them to replace whatever. Like for example HK fans hating the fact the US army chose to upgrade the magazines of the M4 because that was the main issue causing the gun to jam more often rather than adopt the HK 416 during the rifle competition that was held some time before the NGSW program
There something funny to me about weight limit concerns, considering both tanks have evolved into 70 tons these days.
But that is after their modernisation packages, imagine if they started at 70 tonnes their drivetrains would be so underpowered after all the upgrades.
wasn't expecting Dalek14mc to be mentioned, I'm glad he's still around
Great video, very informative and true. Thank you for this video I cherish this video now thank you
All depends on the skill of the crew
What do you think about the Abrams X? Or the t14 Armata?
one is tech-demo for m1a3 while the other still is a paper tank for 8 years
Ones a tech demonstrator that won't reach production.
The other is a tech demonstrator that will reach small scale production
One is for testing weapons and is a concept design and armata is on paper.
@@AdirFoxxo that means they both exist
Is Leo 2a7 a paper tank? Because there are more T-14s than 2a7s
cool informative video. Thanks
That turret ring shot trap on the Abrams drives me nuts though.
I wonder what the specks would have been if the 2AV had gone for a 105mm too
it probably would have been closer to weight but not by much. also would have had to redo the fcs and stab
@@jacobdewey2053 I meant more as in having started to work on the 2AV with the 105mm in mind from the very start, so the FCS and Stabilization would've been designed for the gun at the start
Wait the thing I don't get about the AV is how was it heavier than a 2A4 which are around 55 tons and not 63? Improvements in the composite armor that made the 2A4 lighter? Or did the AV have additional armor somewhere or something?
Also as a Leopard 2 tanker myself, I am properly jealous of the M1 having all of it's ammo behind some kind of blow out panel, while in the Leopard 2 there's a lot of ammo in the hull, like holy shit who thought of doing this so half assed? At the same time I'm glad that I don't hear a constant "WEEEEEEEEEEE" but shit's loud either way so it's just a case of picking your source of tinnitus lmao
Because he's talking about short tons - 63 short tons is about ~57.2 metric tons and the 2AV was a bit overweight, they reduced that by reducing thickness of plates over the engine bay etc.
@@eyyze Aaaah thank you
Auf was für einen Leo bist du aufgeteilt? A6 oder A7V?
@@Phoenix.r6 Schweiz, Panzer 87 Leopard 2 WE, domestisches upgrade vom 2A4 der ihn im Innern auf's Level eines 2A5 bringt. Kein neuer Turm, Panzerung etc. tho :(
@@Meuduso1 oh :( Macht der aber Spaß? Und würdest du dich über einen A6 oder A7V freuen?
Video Topic Idea: What do you think the future entails for the Abrams? Will it be replaced in the near future?
Love this channel
Can you make a video about t to the M1 TTB and Challenger Falcon? People seem to think that the T-14 is the first MBT with a crew less turret
Because people are ignorant and illogical
Might just be me but both of those tanks are ugly as sin
Similar happened with the FN FAL. The US "agreed" to adopt it, but really never did, and having given the US license to the FN FAL to produce it AND export it with basically no financial benefit to FN no matter how many the US made or sold, FN had 0 reason to make the US adopt the FN FAL, so it didn't try very hard when the rifle was trialed. It would've actually been a financial problem for FN, making them weaker when licensing FAL production rights overseas.
So when a group of dudes got randomly hyped up about making "the greatest winter rifle ever" while prototyping the M14, and they put a bunch of effort into making those specific rifles (not the entire design) work really well in the cold, and the testing showed those specific rifles superior, the American design got a good chance at winning, and eventually did.
People have been crying that the US should've adopted the FAL ever since. But without a rifle as bad as the M14 in service, we never would've gotten the M16 so.... it'd've been worse overall
Excellent work.
Great Video! I think a lot of people forget that during the Cold War Germany and the U.S had very different needs. Whereas Germany was very close to Russia basically neighbors the U.S was over 5,000 miles away with oceans between us and Russia, so what we need in a tank was different to what Germany needed and vis-a-versa, not to mention the U.S was pretty much expected to be the main fighting force anywhere outside of Europe if fighting broke out. I'm just glad the Cold War never went Hot and that we got to amazing tank development programs out of it! Can you maybe do a video on French or British MBT development through the Cold War Era?
I personally don't understand why people think the US should have chosen a tank from another country as their main battle tank the US is a big nation that is more than capable of creating their own military equipment it would be nonsensical for them to rely on another nation for a tank
ok.
1 : The armour.
The reason the XM1 won against the Leo is becouse the Brittish developed what would later become known as Burlington, later renamed Dorchester composite laminate armour. This new armour was brought to the attention of the US from the very beginning who used it from the get go to build its XM1 MBT. Germany was pulled into this project so late that the Leopard 2 design was allready finalized, Factories tooled and workforce trained to build the Leopard with a blend mix of steel. Germany was not going to redesign the Leopard 2 but wanted the composite armour so they comprimized where possible to create a tank as good as possible rather then having it incorperated into the design from the ground up.
2. The weight issue.
When talking about the tonnage the Germans where actually, suprise suprise, correct. The US did not specify as clear as to howfar composite armour was to cover the hull, When the new design request was reviewd the tank would go over the 59 tonne weight limit ( A limit the Xm1 would actually break itself considerably ) This was not the fault of the German government but U.S army design specifications changing as requests for V.I.P ( Vehicle improvement programme's) The request for further along the hull amour had to do with the ammo storage in the lower left hull of the Leopard otherwise not being covered by composite armour making survivabillity a issue.
3. Cost.
Mind you the US and Germany allready before commencement of the Leopard 2 and XM1 programmes had spend billions on the MBT-70. The technologies from that platform where to be used by both governments to build a new design when the MBT-70 programme failed. This leads us to the technology cost as Germany was unwilling to do a direct technology transfer as the tech for the Leopard aswell as the XM1 was state of the art MBT tech. They however where willing to allow the US to build the 120mm and FCS and other features like its powerpack under licence which would increase the cost of building it stateside. Germany did this in the hope of being asked/able or being in the position of supplying Leopard 2 from German factories, This would never happen as the US millitiary industrial complex aswell and the US as a nation wants its armaments programme's and factories on US soil. Not foreign.
4. The gun.
The US infact did not do a oops with the 105mm. It was a gun they allready had the technology for having received the L7 105mm gun scematics from the Brittish, they then developed the gun further on their own which became the M68 ( On the top of my head ) Gun which equipped the M60, the tank the XM1 would ultimately replace. The other choise was cost. The US did not have a 120mm in the works and would take years to developed, years the US army did not have. After the MBT-70 debacle congress was allready reviewing US army spending and the army knew if they did not complete this programme within a reasonable time the project would be cancelled as funds was cut ( They allready tried for about 15 years to field a new tank and congress patience was running paper thin) The 105 was built stateside, was available in large numbers, aswell as a ferocious ammo stockpile still available for training and other purposes which would not demand a change of callibre, aswell as the 105mm still being a NATO common round which the US could request in the field should the cold war ever have gone hot. So to satisfy congress aswell as keeping cost lower the 105mm it would be. Untill either a domestic 120mm could be developed or the costs of the new German Reinmetall 120mm would decrease and funds would be available to upgrade the XM1 ( It was designed to take a bigger bore when the 120mm was made available ) Ultimately a licence-to-build was purchased from Reinmettal giving the Americans the M256 120mm smoothbore gun when the M1A1 was introduced into service.
bro wrote a book
"I like apples." "Well, I like oranges."
Love your videos:)
The Puma IFV has a bit of a cult following (myself included) and many think this should be at least an interim replacement for the Bradley, yet the US seems to disqualify it, despite great performance in tests.
Might be a popular topic.
The US isn't going to adopt it the Bradley while long in the tooth can still do its job and we'd most likely just design a homegrown infantry fighting vehicle
At this point, the idea that the US will adopt a German conceptualized or designed vehicle and vice versa(not counting aircrafts) remains a distant dream
@@adityabora9131 if the u.s. adopt a German ifv it is not going to be the puma it's going to be the lynx and even then it's competing against the cv90 Griffen and redback
I've come back to further s*** on the puma that thing is an overpriced mechanically overcomplicated garbage pile and objectively inferior to the lynx the u.s. is going to adopt a German vehicle it should be the lynx
I dont get why t55 gets 335mm pen and abrams gets the same what Gaijin is smoking
Hey, Spook, I had a bit of an idea for a video.
How do you feel about a video that would be comparing the Abrams and the T-72s/T-80s, based on the battle effectiveness, or lack thereof, we've seen in them today? As, imo, MBTs nowadays cannot really be compared effectively as they almost never see combat, but the Abrams and T-80s have seen combat against similar foes and forces(Guerilla warfare and insurgency type combat styles). I think it'd be a neat video, and someone as research intuitive and entertaining as yourself would make it pretty good imo
Got here early! Good video!
That's cool and all but
I find that putting two angry cartoon eye decals will make this tank overwhelmingly superior and give it a huge tactical advantage both in physical combat and psychological
a good topic would be the C1 Ariete AMV upgrade
Watch gaijin nerf the add on again just because someone mentioned the ariete's
I agree with you Peter owo
@@donedar3046 zitto tu furry
Bro, I have been searching for Dalek's channel for over a year now without success and here you just mentioned him lol
In early 1976, in what was a first for Army vehicle testing, the 2 XM1's - Chrysler and GM - were evaluated at APG, by a board of Armor Officers and NCO's assembled from across CONUS, under the command and control of the Operational Test and evaluation Agency.
Both tanks were subjected to some very stringent testing using the M60A1 as the baseline vehicle. The Chrysler was judged the superior of the 2 prototypes. This testing lasted for several months. At the end of the testing, the board was released to it's units. In the Fall of 1976, as many of the same Officers and NCO's were reassembled at APG, at the behest of the German Government, to perform the same testing for the Leopard 2. Same people, same tests.
From the perspective of the tankers, the XM1 significantly out performed the Leopard 2.
The Project Manager and his engineers did the data assessment but the fact was the Leopard was not on a par with the Chrysler XM1.
It was that simple.
West Germany had one mission, fight WW III on its doorstep. Giving ground until the rest of NATO could deploy in support of the ground war. The USA also had to fight not only in Europe but South Korea. And be deployable around the world. (that's where the weight came into play, see C-5 aircraft)
Think of a sports team that only plays home games. You know the weather and the lay of the land. Leopard 2 is your tank. Abrams only plays away games. Not great in any only place, but can get work done.
As for ammo, the USA had a lot of 105mm ammo stockpiled. (from m60) The 120mm was delayed until on the shelf 105mm was used up or sold off.
Keep in mind that between these trials and the actual fielding of these tanks, the slick M1 would surpass the Leo 2 in KE protection as well. The Swedish trials documents indicate that 80% of the Leopard 2A4's frontal armor (Pakete B) was 350mm. A declassified CIA report puts the M1 at 400mm KE. This doesn't include the M1's UFP which is actually more than 500mm of KE effectiveness.
The first version of the M1 provided 400 mm RHA vs KE as you wrote and 750 mm RHA vs CE, and the Leopard 2 with B technology armor (from 1-5 batch) provided 350 mm RHA vs KE and 700 mm RHA vs CE (RARDE documentation). Leopard 2 with C armor tech ( 6-8 batch ) provided about 420 mm RHA vs KE and 750-800 mm RHA vs CE. We know from the British Army test results that the Leopard 2A4 did not meet their minimum armor requirements, the Abrams did.
@@Viktor-fl5mv Im speaking on the orginal M1 vs early Leo 2's by the time C tech was out M1A1HA was in production.
@@boxtankgamer6014 Basically the original M1 armor was superior to Leopard 2 with B tech and M1A1HA ( and most likely normal M1A1 1985 too ) with 1 generation DU armor was superior to Leopard 2 with C tech.
@@Viktor-fl5mv correct
With Abrams X test bed has been shown what is your opinion on it?
Because the ammunition are all stores in the ammo rack at the back of the turret and it has some good max speed.
Title is kinda misleading, it even fished me into clicking the video
Prepare for Leopard Fanboys
How exactly is it misleading? The M1 beat the Leopard 2 during US procurement, which is explained very early on into the video.
@@Spookston It looks as if it beat the Leopard 2 in performance not just in USA but overall
The M68 was retained by the US Army because it was about to adopt the DU "slug" APDSFS M774 which was equal to the 120mm tungsten-steel DM23. The M900 would equal the performance of the DM31, especially with the lengthened M68. The US Army adopted the 120mm Rheinmetall gun after reducing the number of parts by 25% (thus cheaper) as the M256. They did this to exceed the performance of the tungsten-steel DM33 with the DU solid APDSFS M829A1.
you should do a podcast - this is the only channel I can really listen to without watching and I would probably slap that on while I did other stuff
You should look into the MBT-80; brief summary around the same time Britain considered importing the XM1 turret and hulls and fitting domestic parts after a failed colab with Germany because "the replacement timetables diverged to such a degree that collaboration was not practicable at that time." - wiki (to replace leopards & chieftains) however "Reports on the XM1 were not favourable though." - wiki (mbt-80 page).
"tInY GuN HoW Can WoRk?"
-a bitter german after the XM1 was chosen (probably)
Polands having alot of trouble with the Leopard series aswell.
Not sure why, but German defence companies have alot of toruble dealing with getting products out to consumer in a timely manner.
I think it gotten to the point where Poland just needed some sort of tank, and went with the Abrams just because.
Its probably got something to do with German bureaucracy bottlenecking the entire industry.
Source?
Spookston can you talk about the C1 ariete?
Sorry to ask this Spookston but someday you could make a video about the brazilian tank prototype "Osório"? Thanks in advance.
Was going to suggest that, quite interesting story, hope he get interested on this suggestion.
Maybe you want to dive into the decision on why the Germans chose the Leo 2. Or rather why it is the best for Germany.
Here me out
*combine them*
Leprabamord -1.5
He's too dangerous to be left alive!
General dynamics released a new video about their new m1 abrams. It’s pretty wild. Think t14 armata but as an m1 abrams. I would love to see a video about it.
Holy shit man, it looks sick. I didn't know about that, thanks for sharing!
could you deep dive into the SETC? would like to see a video about that too
The Abrams didn't rip off of the Leopard II, the Leopard II didn't rip off of the Abrams.
They both EVOLVED from the MBT-70. This is basic knowledge
Hang on isnt the Abrams X now going to use a hybrid engine as the pos gas turbine just guzzled fuel?
the AbramsX is a tech demo, not a real tank that is going to be produced. The AGT1500 (The Abram's current engine) consumes less fuel actually moving than most traditional diesel engines of tanks in a similar class. Only while idling does it consume more fuel. and in the modern M1 Variants the turbine already has a supplementary electric power system to run the systems while the tank is not moving to address the fuel usage issue.
True, but the turbine had multiple benefits that engines at the time didn't have.
Its a concept vehicle made by GDLS, we wont actually know if it's gonna be accepted.
That is a concept for testing, not the final design especially with a autoloader in it😬😬.
I do believe Spookston has made a video on the gas turbine in the Abrams.
The gist of it was that a gas turbine is basically superior to a traditional turbo diesel setup, the only drawback being idle fuel consumption.
I literally just refreshed my main page
Maybe video about major diferences betwen curent main battle tanks, like how Abrams/Leopard/Leclerc and so on compare to each other.
People think of tanks as stat cards or in direct comparison on equal footing. It doesnt work that way. The Merkava would be a god awful tank for the Japanese, but its the perfect tank for Israel. The Leo2 and M1 dont have as extreme design and doctrinal differences, but they still need to be taken into account
Both the M1 Abrams and the Leopard 2 were a result to the MBT-70 program which Congress cancelled in 1969 because it became too expensive and Congress then approved the XM1.There were two versions___one with a a traditional diesel engine___and the other with a gas turbine engine____the same engine as the Soviet T-80;
What interests me about M1 history is that between XM-1 (C) and production M1 the turret was changed and almost no one speaks about it. And there is a lack of info about it. All I found was that there was a pre-production batch of XM-1 FSED (Full-Scale Engineering Development), that was already looking like M1, but still no talk about why the turret was changed? One website says that the turret was changed to fit a 120mm gun, but wasn't XM-1 competitors had this requirement from the very beginning of the competition? Shouldn't in this case onlythe mantlet be changed? But the whole turret face was changed...
I have so many questions. Was the tank tested against Leopard having an old or new turret, did the turret affect tank's performance or mass or protection? Why nobody talks about it?
Video idea for UK viewers. What are you opinions on Challenger 3? Basically being the same as 2, but with more electronics and a smoothbore gun instead of a rifled. No more hesh?
Leo is better because it's named after a cat, fact.
Because there is a tendency to be very pessimistic about the US governments motivations or decisions in any context. This also going hand-in-hand with the overall more anti-American bias that exists globally.
The Leo would have been expected to bear the brunt of heavy AFV/MBT on AFV/MBT combat reacting to breakthroughs through a defensive line held mostly by ATGM bearing light infantry, on Day 1 of WW3. Some Abrams would have experienced that, but most would have deployed days or weeks layer in a Reforger type scenario were it was unclear if there would be a war of maneuver across overrun NATO countries, aggressive counterattacks into the Soviet hinterlands, or penetrating a new line beyond the inital line of defense after most the Soviets had been dismounted. So the designs each country picked (less all-round protection, more firepower vs higher mobility and more comprehensive protection) make a lot of sense.
Can you do a video on AbramsX and the StrykerX? Or about tank tactics?
Spookston is best
As a Canadian, wish we went with the Abrams
can you do a video on the abrams X
I heard just recently the United States military is coming out with a new Abrams concept called the Abrams X. Read a short PDF about the idea with the tank, and it seems like it could be rather game changing.
Haha gas turbine engine go brrrr
I like the ending, its correct. People often say that the Leopard 2 and the Abrams are "better" than the Challenger 2, saying that its low power-weight ratio and less capable gun make it borderline useless compared to its American and German counterparts. What they don't realise is that those failings are not very significant, its not like comparing a Tiger and an M18 for instance. The Challenger 2 fills a defensive role, sitting in prepared positions, hull down. The Abrams and Leopard 2 sacrifice survivability for greater speed, allowing them to act more aggressively. The tanks are not better in general, but better in specific roles.
Yea and a Challenger 2 the poor out of date MBT with a useless gun took out an Abrams in Iraq in a blue on blue incident
@@davidkennedy7743 same thing was done by a bunch of M1's but the point stands, there is no excuse fpr it being shit, mobility is key, and you have to move with the trend, as well as the stupid gun just to use Hesh.
But now with the challanger 3 thats going in the right direction, better engine and new gun.
But the chassis is just shit
That's because people like to laugh at the Challenger I admittedly like to do that and survivability the Abrams was designed for survivability it's the only NATO tank to feature blowout panels
dalek14mc
Now thats a name that I havent heard in a long time
I'm still very curious on what your opinion is on the Kranvagn from Sweden. It's like an AMX 50 but swedish