>>>Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
The 1o5 Gun on the Arams was taken from the British 105 on the Centurion tank and it Destroyed RUSSIAN tanks in Israels wars including 6 day war so it was quite a Gun indeed .
Thanks to everyone that pointed out that M1 didnt use M735, I had info that the projectile was in service, but guess it was wrong. The situation still doesnt change, Leopard 2 had superior protection and commander's independent sight, so it still holds the title as the best tank of 1980. But it is important to point out the mistake.
James V. D. Bosch it was a three round ready rack situated quite out of the way and behind the armored fuel tank & hull armor. Big difference compared to >20 shells sitting right clean in the front of the hull
@@stateservant they were planning on using a 150mm gun, but decided against it, it's not really needed. Russia's doctrine basically states that they don't need to defend themselves against other superpowers with anything other than advanced nuclear weapons, since on one is gonna attack Russia if they're gonna instantly have all their major cities nuked. The tanks, planes ect are just to keep their technology and industries alive
Buy Premium. Play every evening and you’ll have them after 2 months. Before that you’ll reach fun tanks as well. It’s not those tank that are the only ones OP. There are plenty of others for their level.
@@joewicker9790 yeah not sure about tanks but with the Brad’s we could refill with the engines running. Most of the time the fuelers had us cut the engines. I’m guessing just a safety thing for training.
Clearly you didn't add crew comfort because it would be an automatic win for the brits with their tea making facilities lmao. Jokes aside this is a pretty entertaining video. keep up the good work!
@@Warhero1171 I think most USSR Tanks had something to keep there Tea hot. Or maybe the crews added that themselves. Had not heard about the Vodka cooler but I am sure inventive crews did work something out.
@@Slavic_Goblin Don't worry, that guy is only "tall" when he's wearing his 2" heel cowboy boots and 6" high cowboy hat. Don't mention it to him though or he'll cry and then we'll have to endure a bunch of new videos in which he spends almost the whole time talking about how he's "tall". It's very important to him that we believe it.
@@iamseth9761 Well, if those videos also include some nice tank footage that we haven't seen before... I don't mind listening to him ranting about hight in that case.
Steven Zaloga had a relevant observation on this at the point where the T80u was king in penetration and armor. Since the use of smokescreens at the time was a given, and the stabilization quality made firing on the move realistic, the lack of thermal sights to see through smoke and auto-lead may have made the T-80u's firepower nearly irrelevant and left it as a potentially superior platform only needing some relatively small modifications to be the dominant force, but modifications that remained a step behind the needs of battle.
Its fair to say that in thr 80's most of the western and eastern tank fleets were still based on second generation MBTs like Leopard 1, M-60, Chieftain, AMX-30, T-55, T-62, early T-80, T-72 and T-64.
Also you seem to forget that Early Leopard 2 did not have thermal imaging gunner sight until Leopard2a1 which didnt start seeing fielding and implementing till late 1982 through 1983 it also used early Type A composite armor which is significantly less than what you stated the values you gave are on par with Leopard 2a4 with Type B composite armor.
Lmao you are saying that under a video of someone that is probably a selfproclaimed "Expert", and has an obvious Bias for Russian vehicles on top of that.
@@komradearti9935 it's still an improvement over the standard round, probably not as good as certain rounds at the time, but definitely better than what was loaded at the start
@@reubenritchie6254 wasnt Chally 1 MK 3 just ERA addon + Armored bins for ammo? and i guess youre Talking About L26 i guess it could be noted but would not make much i guess
@@dennis1701e mainly yeah, but I feel like not including the upgrades undermined how well armoured the chally was for its time. I think the fact none have been knocked out by hostile action only backs this up. I know the l26 wasn't the best round going, but it certainly improved the lethality that the system had. Although chally 1 wasn't the best tank for everything, it definitely suited the need of NATO for the time and as a defensive vehicle I don't think there was a better option at the end of the cold War.
@@reubenritchie6254 firstly cant get knocked out if not facing big threats secondly armor wasnt that Special over all others chally Maybe has better all around armor against heat but thats probs it and bla bla yes you are Right most dont bother with brits in WT bc they mostly underperform or are just memes (for tanks and jets) props are awesome tho i still love spit f mk 9
Their frontline tanks right now are T-72's from the early 2000's. However they have created their own version of the T-90 called Karrar, which is supposed to replace all of their older tanks. They still have some upgraded Chieftains in service, as well as a highly upgraded T-54/T-59 tanks they call T-72Z.
Actually there were over 4.500 T-80s. only the upgraded T-80U variant was rare at the time since it was very new. But the M1A1 was also rather new, especially the M1A1HA was very rare at the time too. Most of the Abrams around at that time were still the old version with the weak 105mm gun (it was only phased out in the 90's)
@@xAlexTobiasxB That said past 1985 the M1A1s and HAs definitely outnumbered the T-80U. I think that there were something like 1000+ HAs by the time of Desert Storm.
@@elanvital9720 by the time of 1991 there were already some 500 T80U's too, so it was only outnumbered 2:1 by the HA. Meanwhile the Soviets also had additional 15.000 T-72BV and T64BV (not the weak downgraded versions that the Iraqis used, but the upgraded soviet T72 version with reactive armor, laser-range finder and increased composite armor arrays.
I am one of the few Americans that dipped my toes in US equipment and Soviet equipment. Hands down, US is much better if you have the logistics. I prefer Soviet weapons because they can be used for multiple purposes, rugged and can perform a task for minimal cost. Talk crap all you want about the T55, I do myself. It makes for a great siege gun. 23mm cannons can be fashioned into rifles or on to a Hilux. A PKM is a lighter and is more weildy than a 240 via box hugging techniques. All I am trying to state is if you are in a situation that requires rugged weapons, Soviet is the way to go.
How is USA much better? Utes and Kord HMG are far superior. AGS systems as well. Manpads like Strela, Igla and now Verba are pretty much identical to US equipment. Soviets also had upper hand in artillery. US had many areas where they were leading, but so did Soviets.
@@M8143K the question to ask is "How much better is the US?" and I can't quite answer that. I know that they require a constant supply chain and are tech dependent primed for 3rd generation warfare. If there is a break in the chain, the combat effectiveness starts to faulter. I didn't see this with Soviet Arms
@@billyteflon1322 gas turbine T-80s were garage queens, Soviet Tu-160 were also delicate. Some soviet weapons were really maintenance heavy as well. Soviets did also managed to overcomplicate some weapon systems, it's not just USA.
@@M8143K I am not saying all arms. Their arms are more suited for war out of a NATO/Soviet conflict. Being able to weild a belt fed GPMG like you would a rifle, having automatic ability with an AK is extremely useful. The armored units can be broken down into useful objects. I am not talking about the high end equipment. Just that a T55 still has a place on the battlefield.
@@billyteflon1322 believe it or not, rpg7s are actually a bit complicated/can be made simpler. its predecessor was more like the usual recoiless rifle, but some guy in the soviet union, definitely not drunk on vodka, came up with the idea of strapping a rocket behind the warhead, in addition to more boosters, making it more complicated as a result. so, you have first and second stage solid propellant boosters, then a third stage rocket. it works well though. this is why the world keeps using rpg7s and its the most popular general purpose anti tank weapon used by almost every country that exists(yes, US forces also use it). why i brought up rpgs? hmm.. i was watching spacecraft launches earlier.. rpgs came to my mind for some reason..
These analysis need more soft factors as well. The independent commander’s sight is one such soft factor which makes a good difference. But having a good AC unit, sound protection and enough room to move for the crew can also be vital to keeping them at peak capabilities. Reloading a shell inside a cramped turret is simply going to be a lot more tiring and have a higher risk of it taking longer to properly load. You might be able to hold out for a few hours, but if this is your 12th day in a tank driving and maneuvering and you just spotted a target for the first time, you want your crew as unstressed and alert as possible. Maybe look for after-action reports, memoirs and the like to see how crew fared under conditions.
@@alpejohnson491 and every other top line mbt from the game .. gone are the days when the abrams was a good tank. It's paper now. The leopard1 of america. Worse than leo1 because leo 1 can deal with all it's opponents .. abrams can't ..
@@cold_war_1985if it’s ‘Steam’ or ESS then yes they can fire through the smoke with out any blocking, but if it’s smoke charges they detonate extremely hot so they would black thermal sights only for 6-10 seconds then it would cool down, allowing the thermal to see
I dont know if it carried through - but at least some generations of western tank crews was trained to measure distance not on target, but to solid terrain features near the target. Not as much to avoid the warning systems of soviet tanks, but to get a better measurement. Quite a significant doctrine there which might have had an impact on the battlefield we luckily never had.
Still , I think T-80UK was somewhat better . It was much lighter and the engine as you said was much more fuel efficient . Thus , it had more range . And also you didn't say anything about the gun range and the ATGMs accomodated to it and whether they can compete against M1A2 protection or not .
Don’t know if you’ve done one but would be awesome if you done one when basically the french and German tanks got big upgrades and new British challenger 2 came out. Also American and Russian upgrades to theirs
Do us a favour and don't copy challenger armor values from Gaijin for crying out loud they are entirely wrong. Every document states it has superior CE protection to M1 and the Hull was upgraded to 500mm vs KE in the MK2 iteration onwards (about 1986). Loved the rest of the analysis though.
I hate the term “best” anything. Each State designs and fields pieces of kit and platforms that meet-and all States have specific doctrines practiced. Whatever piece of kit they have is most likely the “best” piece of kit...to have at that time and for whatever doctrine a state/military adheres too at that time. Like the M4 Sherman for the US and allies-it was the best tank in the world...for the US at that time.
You skipped over an Abrams varrient IPM1 and different important parts of tanks such as crew efficiency track and other reliability avg rate of fire weight
War thunder is not "historically accurate" anyone who says that is wrong the game is buggy the shell penetration values are so wrong even the armour on the tanks
Not to mention the aircraft are buggy as hell now and also unrealistic as hell. I mean, why the hell can the soviet yaks do loop de loops like they is no tomorrow without stalling?
Plus you have ww2 tanks going up against Vietnam era tanks with HEATFS and WW2 jets going up against cold war jets with heat sealing missiles and afterburners.
So in 1980 none of the Soviet tanks had thermals? They didn't stand a chance, outside of a massive bumrush at the enemy to get close enough to be able to see in order to hit NATO tanks. But the losses in order to get there would have been _horrendous._
I mean it depends you need to remeber that due to the terrian of german the avrage tank to tank engment distance whould have been about 1500 meters so well with in soviet spotting range plus the soviet whould have done recon not like they be running in blind
@@MostlyPennyCat the soviet air defencse network was the strongest in the world and in any sort of invasion the ussr quickly whould have used sucds to crater run ways and destroy many nato aircraft on the ground remember out of 42 succuds fired by sadam hussein only 1 was a sucessful intercept by the patriot. simmilarly tho sadams air network was A outdated B designed by the french so everyone knew exactly were to hit the sams C not intgrated so it couldent take on more then 20-60 targets at once it still shot down a large number of nato aircraft there older sytemes like the s-125 the kub and the s-75 shot down the newest of natos fighters. And the soviet whouldent have made these 3 mistakes the soviet air defense force whould have sqandered any oppertunity for nato airsupirority Not the metion there vast quantiy of intercepters like the mig-25 that shot down both f-14 and f-18 and a f-15 (everyone but the Us reconised the lost in combat the saudis said it was shot down iraq said it was shot down us said it crashed) The ussr simmilarly had almost 16,000 moblie sam sytemes so the soviets were always going to be coversled Nato simmilarly only had WEEK of air to air missle how do you expect to win air superiority with that? Plus atacms were in service until 1991 The actual coldwar gone hot stuff ends in 1990 with the dissalusion of the Warsaw pact Nato doctrine of the time is highly unrealistic and assumes the soviets are literaly kindergredenrs. You scream i dont know anything about the cold war soviet or nato militaries outside of sone sort of quality over quantity situation which just never was the case in many situations the soviet not only had a quantative advantage but also a qualitavie one as well.
Idk where this guy gets his arm out ratings for abrams and challenger? Those ratings are still classified. So he is guessing based off of Soviet guesses on the ratings.
Great video and good analyses, but in a war there are many other factors that contribute in achieving victory, like tactics and even pure luck. However like I said a great video, keep up the good work.
Again you seem to not comprehend that Russian Gen 3 night vision =/= Western gen 3 night vision so T-80U had a worse gen 2 equivalent night vision which was very outdated by the mid 1980's because of how poor the image was.
@@ArtyomCCCP ua-cam.com/video/d_hMUGONctg/v-deo.html Russian Imagine intensifers used primarily cascade style tubes which was rather archaic by 1980's standards because everyone was using GEN 2 which used several correction filters that sharpened the image making it less grainy with less edge distortion.
I think if you were to do a video on the future of armor on the battlefield, that'd be pretty awesome. Perhaps you could make your predictions as to what features you think will become more common and which will be more successful. Maybe make a design of your own, that you think would be ideal for a given country.
i read that germany got their hands on a T-80 after the cold war, and they test fired 5 rounds with a L44 on it and only one projectile manged to penetrate(hull). which lead to the devlopment of the L55. apperently the americans didnt had that problem with their DU-ammuntion. PS: u should mention, that the low profile of russian tanks is bought with bad gun-depression, which hinder their tactical use in some circumstances. but its probably not that easy to rate :D
Question: did anyone ever think about taking the T-72 hull and mating it with the T-64 turret? Or are they not compatible and replacing the engine/ upgrading the whole tank was the cheaper option.
Not exactly, but they did sort of with the first T-90s, aka T-72 BU. The hull of a T-72 and the turret of a T-80. The T-80 was based and a successor to the T-64.
The problem remains that the doctrine that determines how the tanks are used is more important than the tank's stats. you right hull on the abrams isn't great but the abrams was designed as a defense tank to fight behind cover with only the turret showing. That's the reason nato tanks have higher turrets it helps with depression(hill shooting) of the guns. Russia tanks are designed for an offensive war, which is why the turret is smaller and the hull armor is better. Please do a video on how the tanks fit their nations doctrines and why the design where such.
and so i dont think he ever made one, still comparing raw stats instead of how tanks are actually used. Not that like some design """flaws""" can be unimportant with the doctrine or some """ advantages""" may be not used within the doctrine, but speaking about that is seemingly haram on the Internet
Can you talk about ERA being deadly to any close infantry support, meaning russian tanks are less effective in a combined arms conflict especially in tight urban environments?
Also, what is the practical application intended of the anti tank missile used on the t64 and possibly later tanks? I believe you mention the t64, t72 and t80 all largely use the same main guns which you also note are/were superior. So with a superior main gun for use against armor. In what scenarios would the anti tank missile be used?
RedEffect could you do a video on why Soviet Tanks performed poorly in against Abrahams in first Gulf War, was it that they were mostly obsolete models or poor training and tactics or no air power. How would Soviet Tanks of performed with Soviet crews and more modern tanks.
It's ok for a technical comparision not to look on the costs, but there is one rather important issue always neglected by all this "what was the best", the reliability and servicebility. The best Armor is useless if the Tank can't move and the best gun if the sights are faulty.
True what you say tech doesn't always mean that a tank has an advantage the crew training is paramount . Let's just say I know this from what I have seen . For example a t72 may be old but crewed by well trained Russian guys could be best in the world on its day . Challenger 2 a dinosaur but as I say and I've seen combat record speaks for itself . One more thing your videos are the most accurate on UA-cam you are very impressive
What I always found curious is that here in Germany the Leopard 2 keeps getting serious upgrades towards anti tank warfare while the M1A2 received its biggest upgrades towards urban warfare.
The historical experience of these nations. Germans had "Ze Soviet tank rush" in the mind, while the US was stuck with some RPG-7 goat-lovers in the Middle east.
Because most of the modern combat takes place in Urban environments and insurgents or infantry with RPGs and ATGMs are the biggest threat to all modern tanks in Guerilla warfare...
What about the Israeli Merkava(sp)? Also, it seems the Chieftains and M60's were fairly effective against the soviet built tanks (probably cheaper quality) thrown at them during the Yom Kipur war.
When I was on the M60A1, the T-72 worried me and the T-64 (or disinformation around it), scared me. When I was on the M60A3, the T-64 didn't worry me and I knew I could take the T-72 from dusk to dawn; dawn to dusk was less of a sure thing. When they rolled out the M1, the T-72 became an object of pity and the T-90 was mildly interesting. Oh, how times change.
I mean M735 was not used iirc on the Abrams you could argue the M774 briefly in 1980 but by 1983 the US tanks had M833 for the Abrams of the time...That has always been considered the main dart of the 105mmm Abrams iirc.
@@mrwehraboo5478 The T34 is widely regarded as the best massed produced tank of WW2. Soviet tank crews hardly had any training to get familiar with there tanks when they looked like they were going to lose the war. American and British crews were a lit better trained. T34 tanks had lasting effect on tank design. The combination of The 76mm gun , mobility with its speed and wide tracks and armour which was sloped and lower profile than many tanks of the time made it a great tank. The Germans copied the design in the Panther. Shemans were not good tanks. They were only good because of the industrial might of the US and the numbers produced.
@@kaloyandraganov9462 kinda impossible considering the m1a2 tank cannon had more penetration than the russian 85mm on the t-34 and lets not even talk about the armor on the t-34 it breaks much faster than the sherman hell even panzer 3 hullbroke the t-34 in barbarossa
The iraqi was too poor to buy T72A so they decided to Buy T72M which is a sacm tank from Poland and got scammed as well from USSR by buying old ammunition for the tanks So the iraqi gone to war blindly with those
Well made and researched video but if I were you I'd put like title cards for each of the years so its easier to find which section you are talking about. Few things I noticed: No mention of L26 round (not L26A1 used with 120mm L30) for the British which the Challenger 1 used in the gulf war, though no idea on introduction date. Not sure weather it would have been able to penetrate T-80U either but would have been better than L23/L23A1. Also the L23A1 was introduced in 1985 so you could have mentioned that in the 1985 section rather than 1989. Yes you're right in saying this wouldn't have reliably been able to penetrate T-80U. Also if you're going by "Cold war" then technically T-90 doesn't fit this list as it was accepted into service after the Soviet union had disbanded, although it was developed during the timeframe so ill allow it.
@Grindererr Official Your lack of real-worldliness makes me assume you are American but most likely a Britisher with no experience of the world, that might fit. I can tell who you are without even hearing your accent. And yes Red Effect is definitely Indian. :)
M1 NEVER USED M735! This is a point of contention even on the Warthunder forums and with people who actually crewed the early Abrams. The M735 was trailed with the early XM1 prototypes as well as the final prototype produced by GDLS but the M1 when it entered service used M774 APFSDS. It's also worth noting that not but a few years later M833 was introduced. Also while Commander didnt have his own night sight he wasn't blind at night because the Field of View on the Thermal sight was large enough for the commander to look for targets even if he had to share it with the Gunner. Also its worth noting that Thermal provided far superior target acquisition compared to Soviet passive IR night vision which had poor edge clarity and poor field of view the commander as well had PVS-4 weapon scope and PVS-5 or PVS-7 gen 2night vision goggles for manuvering at night which was far superior to Russian tankers passive IR goggles which relied heavily on IR illumination from the gunners IR lamp to see this also made them a huge target because to anyone night vision the Soviet IR flood lamp would stick out like a sore thumb and compromise their location to the enemy.
@Bleagle its not to do with balance its to do with the lack of knowledge even though the community blatantly points it out. The M60A1 Ariete was a premium that had its stabiliser removed even though the stabiliser was virtually the only selling point about the tank.
@@domeboymemus848 tbh they get so much stuff from everywhere ist no wonder they often Need time to fix stuff you dont just have 1 community Screaming at them its dozen (different languages) About the italian M60A1 well Maybe ist true what they did also when ist only selling Point idk what you talk About with the improved A1 Turret on 7.7 is very powerful also they try to Keep a balance between fun(balance) and realism which is Always good or bad depending on who you ask
Leclerc is one of the two NATO tanks equipped with autoloader. The other one being kyu maru Shiki. And K2 Panther but that doesn't fit in cold War time frame. Also you should explain manual vs autoloader - NATO tanks have 2 tap advantage, 1 in chamber, 2nd round already on loaders hip, fire, extract fumes and quick reload - that's the double tap
T55, T62 and T72 were the backbone of soviet divisions. Many european countries still relayed on Leo1, M60, M48 and AMX, en pair with latest T55 but inferior to T72.
No one knows what the challenger can stop as the armour is secret. So don't where you are getting your stats form. I know this the challenger armour was better than M1 hence why the Americans started using cobom instead off laminated steel
Were Russian tankers on these newer tanks usually professionals, or also conscripts? That might be a factor against all-professional US tank crews. I'm not trying to throw shade at the Russians. It's just that highly trained pros usually do better than the latter, no matter willingness or bravery. Again, I'm not going after Russian tank crews, I'm just curious if that would change your calculations. But I'm only asking because I have no clue as to what types of crews the Russians were fielding during each period. Great video, btw. Very informative. Thanks!
I know this is late but heres your awnser The ussr had about 1.2-1.7 million professinal soldigers these guys were going to be fighting in t-80s for the most part the soviet army function on a eqiuipment surplus syteme were they had all the equipment ready to go to call millions of reservists into service at a moments notice some estimates go as high as ten million extra soldigers. Most soviet divsions were skeletion crew formed mostly of mantince personel officers and concrrpits learing how to fight and most of the time tgese division were at about 25% full streagth these moblization divisions whould take the older tank models But the pros were going to get the best of the best the t-80s and later t-72 varients
Hm, I would have really liked to actually use one of those other tanks for once. During my time at the military I have been a gunner on Leopard 2A5 and left right before the upgrade to 2A6. During this time, we had literally tons of shooting challenges against US Army tank platoons using the M1A2. I have no idea whether the M1A2 is only a paper-tiger (great numbers on paper, but not performing accordingly) or whether US tank platoons just get the poorest training possible on them. As a matter of fact, during my first combat practice I had been a gunner on the Leopard for 2 months(!!) and we destroyed the US counterparts to a degree where they rejected to complete the challenge and called it a day earlier. I think they scored just a hand full of hits at all during movement throughout the entire day whereas our precision was almost the same, independent of us moving or standing still. So again, no idea if that was the tank, or individual quality (which I cannot believe since those guys had already been deployed in combat before and knew their tanks in and out), but the difference was huge. Also, we can debate a lot about how good DU-penetrator 105mm might have been, or rather not, but I guess there was a reason behind the US starting to implement a slightly adapted version of the Rheinmetal gun on the M1. One more thing that was mentioned here jokingly a few times, but that is hard for you to put into such videos: Crew comfort actually means a big deal. I have only been sitting in M1A2, T72 and Leopard 2A5 and none of the other more modern MBTs, but if you have to stay in there closed hatch for a few days, trust me, you would want a Leopard, maybe an M1, definitely not a T72! Balistically it absolutely makes sense to build the tanks more flat and with nice inwards angles, but that heavily cuts down space for the crew as well as proper seats and generally the ability to stretch yourself every once in a while or even boil and eat something small.
Hmm.. strange how the Leopard had more time on the video and second in line from Abraham's, I never realized it was a senior partner in NATO Ahead of the British despite its British Main Gun
here is issue. Looking at performance, not price. So one ultra modern tank vs 100 modern tanks for same price. is it fair to compare them 1v1 or 1v100? German tigers never were knocked out with penetration to front armor, but there were seas of garbage t34 which were unreliable as hell etc, yet they won. Quantity over quality sometimes matters and quality costs.
Would be good to include parameters like maintenence ease (for example how much time does it take to swap engines) or crew survivability (like comparing M1s ammo stores and Challenger ammo stores) Crew comfort and internal/external storage space, Range and mobility ( it is rather important most soviet tanks couldnt turn in place) etc .Those are rather important factors. In this video its rather important to mention the armour comparison in front turret armour coverage. Most allied tanks have rougky equal turret coverage (except the Leopard 2a4 weakspot and the weak armoured Leclerc Mantlet) but in Soviet tanks turrets got only the cheeks armoured and th turret center has gaps in both special armour and reactiva armour. And that is a large gap. In order to make a video like this it needs those considerations included
russian tanks would still take the 1st place, nothing more rugged than those things, ease of repair and maintenance. Crew comfort is very subjective, you get used to everything with time.
This video is a partial failure not taking into account some of the tanks that were available to NATO in large numbers. The Chieftain MKIX to XII that had TOGs, stillbrew and other enhancements similar to the Challenger MkI , NATO had hundreds of capable Chieftains available so it ought to be included. French AMX30s need to be added to the list despite not being that capable, they existed and can't be ignored. France could still be considered part of NATO if not active in its command and control. What happened to Challenger II?
@DarkstarTendor I talk about both DM23 and DM33 in the video, I dont speak year per year, so when I speak about 1985 I say how Germans had already developed DM23 at the time, when I speak about 1989 I say how Germans had developed DM33.
This video is about brand new generations of MBT at the time, if I was to speak about every possible tank that existed at the time this video would be 5 hours long, Soviets had upgraded their T-62 and T-55 tanks to oblivion, US had their M60 variants, Germany had Leopard 1s, etc. etc.
@redeffect - I appreciate that but considering that Chieftain was still being upgraded when Challenger came out and was a capable enough tank with many of the enhancements that Challenger I had, it seems only correct to include it. There were hundreds facing the Warsaw Pact and the Chieftain, despite being old, set the style for all future NATO MBTs. With armour upgrades, TOGs and the 120mm it was capable of firing APDFS and HESH in lethal amounts against Soviet armour. Chieftain wasn't the best but crewed well, it was certainly better than all that previous generation US armour with just the 105mm L7. Your video title does not state the best of the late cold war, it merely states a time and the Chieftain was still in the brew and would have mixed it with the best of them, British tank crews being surprisingly good in combat rather than just excelling in competitions.
@@yereverluvinuncleber whats the point of including it, it would clearly fall behind most of the tanks I included, and Soviets upgraded their T-55A and T-62 tanks to more modern standard in 1980-81, I didnt include them either because they were still inferior to the 3rd gen MBTs that were popping out at the time, if you are going to make a comparison you should make it fair, Chieftain, T-62M, etc. are inferior in both protection and mobility to the tanks of the period, they wouldnt be a match for Leopard 2, Abrams and T-80.
Well some Iraqi T72 is not made by russian, but locally produced..and for your information the Iraqi steel quality really bad and I mean it really that bad bcuz the amount of sulfurs is more than composition of the steel itself.thats really made the steel is not strong although the thickness is really thick
>>>Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship
and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder
Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/303852893667328002/648498717393158170/always_wear_helmet.gif
Do you play War Thunder?
@DarkstarTendor Gay
@RedEffect Please can u tell me what is the armor (im MM) on the T-80 BV with Kontakt-1 around 530 mm like t-72B? (against Apfsds)
The 1o5 Gun on the Arams was taken from the British 105 on the Centurion tank and it Destroyed RUSSIAN tanks in Israels wars including 6 day war so it was quite a Gun indeed .
Thanks to everyone that pointed out that M1 didnt use M735, I had info that the projectile was in service, but guess it was wrong. The situation still doesnt change, Leopard 2 had superior protection and commander's independent sight, so it still holds the title as the best tank of 1980. But it is important to point out the mistake.
@Pommy Pie That's actually not entirely true, the M1 Abrams had a ready rack that was unprotected: imgur.com/a/MNjTC7O
James V. D. Bosch it was a three round ready rack situated quite out of the way and behind the armored fuel tank & hull armor. Big difference compared to >20 shells sitting right clean in the front of the hull
If we’re talking 1980, the M1 would’ve had access to the M774 shell with a DU penetrator and improved performance against angled armor.
@@Hollycalvey Ofcourse, however, it is still not the same as *ALL* ammunition being stowed behind the bustle rack, that's all I'm pointing out.
did the m774 has DU penetrator ? tought only the m833 and m900 had it for the 105
remember when sturmpanzers kept killing M1 Abrams when they first came out?
Wut dor real XD
@@USSAnimeNCC- Not to mention KV 2
just any tank that have ridiculous DERP gun and HE shell
no one well survive
They cooking M1 abrams crew members
Why doesn't armata use a 200mm derp gun? It will make quick work on anything.
@@stateservant they were planning on using a 150mm gun, but decided against it, it's not really needed. Russia's doctrine basically states that they don't need to defend themselves against other superpowers with anything other than advanced nuclear weapons, since on one is gonna attack Russia if they're gonna instantly have all their major cities nuked. The tanks, planes ect are just to keep their technology and industries alive
Yeah you can play the T72 or Abrams in War thunder... *
*After year of painfull grind or hundreds of euro spent :D :D
ORRRR
PAID FOR PREMIUM :v
Buy Premium. Play every evening and you’ll have them after 2 months.
Before that you’ll reach fun tanks as well. It’s not those tank that are the only ones OP. There are plenty of others for their level.
@@scudb5509 That's the problem, War thunder's economy is unbalanced making it pay to progress and one might argue, pay to play in high tiers/br's
Commander Pinochet I’ve never bought a premium tank. Only premium accounts. Top top tier for Russians is shit atm anyway.
Buy it one day at a time of you don't play one day it won't waste
Ah yes WarThunder a beautiful *life spending game*
Jes i like to be spawn camped but the game is not bad at all xD
Yeah as a Bradley guy I think I see the Abrams in my battalion fueling up more than actually maneuvering
I heard some M1s got stuck in Syria, they dont have enough fuel to get back home so now they have to stay there and guard the oilfields....
In Desert Storm Bradley's used to cover 3x the distance that M-1s did on one ... uh....tank... I mean, fill up :D
They cant keep that turbine running during refueling :D
Not true. You can hot refuel and keep going.
@@joewicker9790 yeah not sure about tanks but with the Brad’s we could refill with the engines running. Most of the time the fuelers had us cut the engines. I’m guessing just a safety thing for training.
Clearly you didn't add crew comfort because it would be an automatic win for the brits with their tea making facilities lmao.
Jokes aside this is a pretty entertaining video. keep up the good work!
Russians would actually win due to having their vodka coolers.
@@SerinaDeMadrigal Heh, tankers are generally picked from among the short guys. Except for Chieftain for some reason. xD
@@Warhero1171 I think most USSR Tanks had something to keep there Tea hot. Or maybe the crews added that themselves. Had not heard about the Vodka cooler but I am sure inventive crews did work something out.
@@Slavic_Goblin Don't worry, that guy is only "tall" when he's wearing his 2" heel cowboy boots and 6" high cowboy hat. Don't mention it to him though or he'll cry and then we'll have to endure a bunch of new videos in which he spends almost the whole time talking about how he's "tall". It's very important to him that we believe it.
@@iamseth9761 Well, if those videos also include some nice tank footage that we haven't seen before...
I don't mind listening to him ranting about hight in that case.
When i saw the notification, i read NATO vs UBER
Russian bias comrade
Heavy coming with Uber
Honda civic vs Abrams
Oh no my uber is here! Im fucking doomed!
😂
Steven Zaloga had a relevant observation on this at the point where the T80u was king in penetration and armor.
Since the use of smokescreens at the time was a given, and the stabilization quality made firing on the move realistic, the lack of thermal sights to see through smoke and auto-lead may have made the T-80u's firepower nearly irrelevant and left it as a potentially superior platform only needing some relatively small modifications to be the dominant force, but modifications that remained a step behind the needs of battle.
Its fair to say that in thr 80's most of the western and eastern tank fleets were still based on second generation MBTs like Leopard 1, M-60, Chieftain, AMX-30, T-55, T-62, early T-80, T-72 and T-64.
Also you seem to forget that Early Leopard 2 did not have thermal imaging gunner sight until Leopard2a1 which didnt start seeing fielding and implementing till late 1982 through 1983 it also used early Type A composite armor which is significantly less than what you stated the values you gave are on par with Leopard 2a4 with Type B composite armor.
What about the Chieftain and Challenger tanks?
Challenger gets mentioned. Chieftain was inferior to T-64B in all but thermals, so it does'nt even make sense to include it here
Salty comments battle between self proclamed tank expert begin
Belka has the best tank no question about it
Yes, if only they could appreciate the full superiority of Belkan tachnology
Lmao you are saying that under a video of someone that is probably a selfproclaimed "Expert", and has an obvious Bias for Russian vehicles on top of that.
Oh come on, Bob Semple is simply the best without any doubt
I played the tank mission in CoD World at War, so I actually have a degree in tankology.
1:50 never underestimate a good pair of Zeiss binoculars
I knew this video was coming! Great one Red.
gajuble: historically accurate vehicles
also gayjingles: ostwind 2
It was planned but not build.
@@zeke2408 as a japanese o-i and other paper tanks
Andy Didko
Don’t forget the HE-162 being a beast while in reality not even a single one shot atleast light fighter
HEHE BOI planes gonna hate
I heard it was built though?
"The engine wasn't very powerful, so the tank was kind of slow.." LOL
Red can you please give Gaijin your source for the T-80UD’s armor array. They have made it a copy and paste of the T-80U’s array.
Now I know where Red Effect gets all those Sekrit Dokuments.
They re not a secret anymore
@@fabio6170 r/woosh
@@90enemies thats not a wooosh
@@90enemies you clearly don't know when to wooosh someone
So no mention of the improved armour on the chally 1 mk. 3, or the DU rounds we put in them?
@@komradearti9935 it's still an improvement over the standard round, probably not as good as certain rounds at the time, but definitely better than what was loaded at the start
@@reubenritchie6254 wasnt Chally 1 MK 3 just ERA addon + Armored bins for ammo? and i guess youre Talking About L26 i guess it could be noted but would not make much i guess
@@dennis1701e mainly yeah, but I feel like not including the upgrades undermined how well armoured the chally was for its time. I think the fact none have been knocked out by hostile action only backs this up. I know the l26 wasn't the best round going, but it certainly improved the lethality that the system had. Although chally 1 wasn't the best tank for everything, it definitely suited the need of NATO for the time and as a defensive vehicle I don't think there was a better option at the end of the cold War.
Well in war thunder no one gives a f about the british
@@reubenritchie6254 firstly cant get knocked out if not facing big threats secondly armor wasnt that Special over all others chally Maybe has better all around armor against heat but thats probs it
and bla bla yes you are Right most dont bother with brits in WT bc they mostly underperform or are just memes (for tanks and jets) props are awesome tho i still love spit f mk 9
Btw. Chally Protektion from Front Tower ist 650mm againt Apfsds ans Hull is 470mm againt apfsds
Your grammar gave me a stroke, and i don't know what you wanted to say.
Please make a video about tanks of Iran
Slavik Chukhlebov also American m60s
@@QualityPen they had American and British tanks, “inherited” from the days of Shah.
Their frontline tanks right now are T-72's from the early 2000's. However they have created their own version of the T-90 called Karrar, which is supposed to replace all of their older tanks. They still have some upgraded Chieftains in service, as well as a highly upgraded T-54/T-59 tanks they call T-72Z.
@@mistergeopolitics4456 Type 72Z
wasn’t the last year of the cold war 1991 and not 1992?
The one thing you didnt mention is numbers. The M1A1 vastly outnumbered the T-80 of the time which only had a few hundred produced.
Actually there were over 4.500 T-80s. only the upgraded T-80U variant was rare at the time since it was very new. But the M1A1 was also rather new, especially the M1A1HA was very rare at the time too. Most of the Abrams around at that time were still the old version with the weak 105mm gun (it was only phased out in the 90's)
@@xAlexTobiasxB That said past 1985 the M1A1s and HAs definitely outnumbered the T-80U. I think that there were something like 1000+ HAs by the time of Desert Storm.
@@elanvital9720 by the time of 1991 there were already some 500 T80U's too, so it was only outnumbered 2:1 by the HA. Meanwhile the Soviets also had additional 15.000 T-72BV and T64BV (not the weak downgraded versions that the Iraqis used, but the upgraded soviet T72 version with reactive armor, laser-range finder and increased composite armor arrays.
I am one of the few Americans that dipped my toes in US equipment and Soviet equipment. Hands down, US is much better if you have the logistics. I prefer Soviet weapons because they can be used for multiple purposes, rugged and can perform a task for minimal cost. Talk crap all you want about the T55, I do myself. It makes for a great siege gun. 23mm cannons can be fashioned into rifles or on to a Hilux. A PKM is a lighter and is more weildy than a 240 via box hugging techniques. All I am trying to state is if you are in a situation that requires rugged weapons, Soviet is the way to go.
How is USA much better? Utes and Kord HMG are far superior. AGS systems as well. Manpads like Strela, Igla and now Verba are pretty much identical to US equipment. Soviets also had upper hand in artillery. US had many areas where they were leading, but so did Soviets.
@@M8143K the question to ask is "How much better is the US?" and I can't quite answer that. I know that they require a constant supply chain and are tech dependent primed for 3rd generation warfare. If there is a break in the chain, the combat effectiveness starts to faulter. I didn't see this with Soviet Arms
@@billyteflon1322 gas turbine T-80s were garage queens, Soviet Tu-160 were also delicate. Some soviet weapons were really maintenance heavy as well. Soviets did also managed to overcomplicate some weapon systems, it's not just USA.
@@M8143K I am not saying all arms. Their arms are more suited for war out of a NATO/Soviet conflict. Being able to weild a belt fed GPMG like you would a rifle, having automatic ability with an AK is extremely useful. The armored units can be broken down into useful objects. I am not talking about the high end equipment. Just that a T55 still has a place on the battlefield.
@@billyteflon1322 believe it or not, rpg7s are actually a bit complicated/can be made simpler. its predecessor was more like the usual recoiless rifle, but some guy in the soviet union, definitely not drunk on vodka, came up with the idea of strapping a rocket behind the warhead, in addition to more boosters, making it more complicated as a result. so, you have first and second stage solid propellant boosters, then a third stage rocket. it works well though. this is why the world keeps using rpg7s and its the most popular general purpose anti tank weapon used by almost every country that exists(yes, US forces also use it). why i brought up rpgs? hmm.. i was watching spacecraft launches earlier.. rpgs came to my mind for some reason..
These analysis need more soft factors as well.
The independent commander’s sight is one such soft factor which makes a good difference. But having a good AC unit, sound protection and enough room to move for the crew can also be vital to keeping them at peak capabilities. Reloading a shell inside a cramped turret is simply going to be a lot more tiring and have a higher risk of it taking longer to properly load. You might be able to hold out for a few hours, but if this is your 12th day in a tank driving and maneuvering and you just spotted a target for the first time, you want your crew as unstressed and alert as possible.
Maybe look for after-action reports, memoirs and the like to see how crew fared under conditions.
You look like that spongebob worm when you unlock the abrams
Lol m1 abrams
Him- I finally got to top tier YEAH M1 ABRAMS BEST TANK IRL SO ITS BEST TANK IN GAME OFC!
Italian players- Heheheh yeah boi.....
@@alpejohnson491 and every other top line mbt from the game .. gone are the days when the abrams was a good tank. It's paper now. The leopard1 of america. Worse than leo1 because leo 1 can deal with all it's opponents .. abrams can't ..
Thermal sight is quite a game changer. Western tank could just fire smoke grenades when engaged and return fire unopposed.
Smoke granades block thermal sight.
@@cold_war_1985if it’s ‘Steam’ or ESS then yes they can fire through the smoke with out any blocking, but if it’s smoke charges they detonate extremely hot so they would black thermal sights only for 6-10 seconds then it would cool down, allowing the thermal to see
I dont know if it carried through - but at least some generations of western tank crews was trained to measure distance not on target, but to solid terrain features near the target. Not as much to avoid the warning systems of soviet tanks, but to get a better measurement. Quite a significant doctrine there which might have had an impact on the battlefield we luckily never had.
A marvelous analysis thank you so much
Still , I think T-80UK was somewhat better . It was much lighter and the engine as you said was much more fuel efficient . Thus , it had more range . And also you didn't say anything about the gun range and the ATGMs accomodated to it and whether they can compete against M1A2 protection or not .
Don’t know if you’ve done one but would be awesome if you done one when basically the french and German tanks got big upgrades and new British challenger 2 came out. Also American and Russian upgrades to theirs
Very good breakdown of all the tanks to the gulf war
Yeah yeah yeah you can totally play those tanks in war thunder only if you grind a country for more than a year not worth the time
Do us a favour and don't copy challenger armor values from Gaijin for crying out loud they are entirely wrong. Every document states it has superior CE protection to M1 and the Hull was upgraded to 500mm vs KE in the MK2 iteration onwards (about 1986).
Loved the rest of the analysis though.
Very good analysis. I enjoyed your video.
Haven't finished video, but my guess is gonna be t-80U and M1A1 are gonna be tops with some challenger sprinkled in for flavor
Leopard 2a4 honourable mention
I hate the term “best” anything.
Each State designs and fields pieces of kit and platforms that meet-and all States have specific doctrines practiced. Whatever piece of kit they have is most likely the “best” piece of kit...to have at that time and for whatever doctrine a state/military adheres too at that time.
Like the M4 Sherman for the US and allies-it was the best tank in the world...for the US at that time.
You skipped over an Abrams varrient IPM1 and different important parts of tanks such as crew efficiency track and other reliability avg rate of fire weight
Congrats on the sponsorship! Keep up the good videos :D
War thunder is not "historically accurate"
anyone who says that is wrong
the game is buggy
the shell penetration values are so wrong
even the armour on the tanks
Not to mention the aircraft are buggy as hell now and also unrealistic as hell.
I mean, why the hell can the soviet yaks do loop de loops like they is no tomorrow without stalling?
Plus you have ww2 tanks going up against Vietnam era tanks with HEATFS and WW2 jets going up against cold war jets with heat sealing missiles and afterburners.
@@toasterbathboi6298 or even better, cold war tanks who's best round is heat fs going up against a tank with era and stabiliser...
Bugs = historically inaccurate. Ok
@@bigturn1051 it's not just the bugs
it's the developers that don't know shit
HOLY FUCK YOU ARE SPONSORED BY WARTHUNDER, im really happy for you! Keep it up!
This war thunder advertisement aged well
Great video bro
How many t80u's were available? As well as the ammunition?
So in 1980 none of the Soviet tanks had thermals?
They didn't stand a chance, outside of a massive bumrush at the enemy to get close enough to be able to see in order to hit NATO tanks.
But the losses in order to get there would have been _horrendous._
I mean it depends you need to remeber that due to the terrian of german the avrage tank to tank engment distance whould have been about 1500 meters so well with in soviet spotting range plus the soviet whould have done recon not like they be running in blind
@@historyisawesome6399
And with ATACMS doing the AirLandBattle thing they'd quickly run out of fuel and ammo I guess.
Nasty.
@@MostlyPennyCat the soviet air defencse network was the strongest in the world and in any sort of invasion the ussr quickly whould have used sucds to crater run ways and destroy many nato aircraft on the ground remember out of 42 succuds fired by sadam hussein only 1 was a sucessful intercept by the patriot. simmilarly tho sadams air network was A outdated B designed by the french so everyone knew exactly were to hit the sams C not intgrated so it couldent take on more then 20-60 targets at once it still shot down a large number of nato aircraft there older sytemes like the s-125 the kub and the s-75 shot down the newest of natos fighters. And the soviet whouldent have made these 3 mistakes the soviet air defense force whould have sqandered any oppertunity for nato airsupirority
Not the metion there vast quantiy of intercepters like the mig-25 that shot down both f-14 and f-18 and a f-15 (everyone but the Us reconised the lost in combat the saudis said it was shot down iraq said it was shot down us said it crashed)
The ussr simmilarly had almost 16,000 moblie sam sytemes so the soviets were always going to be coversled
Nato simmilarly only had WEEK of air to air missle how do you expect to win air superiority with that?
Plus atacms were in service until 1991
The actual coldwar gone hot stuff ends in 1990 with the dissalusion of the Warsaw pact
Nato doctrine of the time is highly unrealistic and assumes the soviets are literaly kindergredenrs.
You scream i dont know anything about the cold war soviet or nato militaries outside of sone sort of quality over quantity situation which just never was the case in many situations the soviet not only had a quantative advantage but also a qualitavie one as well.
Another nice video, this channel is very good!
Idk where this guy gets his arm out ratings for abrams and challenger? Those ratings are still classified. So he is guessing based off of Soviet guesses on the ratings.
Great video and good analyses, but in a war there are many other factors that contribute in achieving victory, like tactics and even pure luck. However like I said a great video, keep up the good work.
Thank you for providing sources!
Again you seem to not comprehend that Russian Gen 3 night vision =/= Western gen 3 night vision so T-80U had a worse gen 2 equivalent night vision which was very outdated by the mid 1980's because of how poor the image was.
Talking without source is great,give us this source please.
@@ArtyomCCCP have you never used surplus Russian night vision equipment ?
@@ArtyomCCCP ua-cam.com/video/d_hMUGONctg/v-deo.html Russian Imagine intensifers used primarily cascade style tubes which was rather archaic by 1980's standards because everyone was using GEN 2 which used several correction filters that sharpened the image making it less grainy with less edge distortion.
@@ArtyomCCCP ua-cam.com/video/kD9ZM-1DONE/v-deo.html here is a AN/PVS-5 of the same era as the 1PN58 Soviet Night sight.
@@nemisous83 but soviets didn't used theses night sight in their T-80 tanks.
I think if you were to do a video on the future of armor on the battlefield, that'd be pretty awesome. Perhaps you could make your predictions as to what features you think will become more common and which will be more successful. Maybe make a design of your own, that you think would be ideal for a given country.
Active Protection Systems, better 3rd Gen Thermal Imagers, All round Cameras, APU´s, Remote Weapon Stations
I personally think a standard design diesel engine has many advantages over a turbine, any thoughts?
i read that germany got their hands on a T-80 after the cold war, and they test fired 5 rounds with a L44 on it and only one projectile manged to penetrate(hull). which lead to the devlopment of the L55.
apperently the americans didnt had that problem with their DU-ammuntion.
PS: u should mention, that the low profile of russian tanks is bought with bad gun-depression, which hinder their tactical use in some circumstances. but its probably not that easy to rate :D
Because eastern Europe is flat and you don't need -10 gun in their
Do a review of the leman Russ MBT of the imperium of man 😁
Question: did anyone ever think about taking the T-72 hull and mating it with the T-64 turret? Or are they not compatible and replacing the engine/ upgrading the whole tank was the cheaper option.
Not exactly, but they did sort of with the first T-90s, aka T-72 BU. The hull of a T-72 and the turret of a T-80. The T-80 was based and a successor to the T-64.
@@globalcitizen8321 interesting ok
i mean it could probably be done after some redesigns but just why
1992 the new t-80 absolutely rocks
The problem remains that the doctrine that determines how the tanks are used is more important than the tank's stats. you right hull on the abrams isn't great but the abrams was designed as a defense tank to fight behind cover with only the turret showing. That's the reason nato tanks have higher turrets it helps with depression(hill shooting) of the guns. Russia tanks are designed for an offensive war, which is why the turret is smaller and the hull armor is better. Please do a video on how the tanks fit their nations doctrines and why the design where such.
and so i dont think he ever made one, still comparing raw stats instead of how tanks are actually used.
Not that like some design """flaws""" can be unimportant with the doctrine or some """ advantages""" may be not used within the doctrine, but speaking about that is seemingly haram on the Internet
Can you talk about ERA being deadly to any close infantry support, meaning russian tanks are less effective in a combined arms conflict especially in tight urban environments?
considering that all nations put era on their tanks it`s not the case
Also, what is the practical application intended of the anti tank missile used on the t64 and possibly later tanks? I believe you mention the t64, t72 and t80 all largely use the same main guns which you also note are/were superior. So with a superior main gun for use against armor. In what scenarios would the anti tank missile be used?
AT missile used at longer ranges and against helicopters
ATGM's were more accurate beyond 3 km than apfsds at that time.
RedEffect could you do a video on why Soviet Tanks performed poorly in against Abrahams in first Gulf War, was it that they were mostly obsolete models or poor training and tactics or no air power. How would Soviet Tanks of performed with Soviet crews and more modern tanks.
Those were not the best Soviet tank
And had export ammo
It's ok for a technical comparision not to look on the costs, but there is one rather important issue always neglected by all this "what was the best", the reliability and servicebility.
The best Armor is useless if the Tank can't move and the best gun if the sights are faulty.
True what you say tech doesn't always mean that a tank has an advantage the crew training is paramount . Let's just say I know this from what I have seen . For example a t72 may be old but crewed by well trained Russian guys could be best in the world on its day . Challenger 2 a dinosaur but as I say and I've seen combat record speaks for itself . One more thing your videos are the most accurate on UA-cam you are very impressive
What I always found curious is that here in Germany the Leopard 2 keeps getting serious upgrades towards anti tank warfare while the M1A2 received its biggest upgrades towards urban warfare.
The historical experience of these nations. Germans had "Ze Soviet tank rush" in the mind, while the US was stuck with some RPG-7 goat-lovers in the Middle east.
Because most of the modern combat takes place in Urban environments and insurgents or infantry with RPGs and ATGMs are the biggest threat to all modern tanks in Guerilla warfare...
What about the Israeli Merkava(sp)? Also, it seems the Chieftains and M60's were fairly effective against the soviet built tanks (probably cheaper quality) thrown at them during the Yom Kipur war.
When I was on the M60A1, the T-72 worried me and the T-64 (or disinformation around it), scared me.
When I was on the M60A3, the T-64 didn't worry me and I knew I could take the T-72 from dusk to dawn; dawn to dusk was less of a sure thing.
When they rolled out the M1, the T-72 became an object of pity and the T-90 was mildly interesting.
Oh, how times change.
I mean M735 was not used iirc on the Abrams you could argue the M774 briefly in 1980 but by 1983 the US tanks had M833 for the Abrams of the time...That has always been considered the main dart of the 105mmm Abrams iirc.
Csn you please do a video about the t-34 vs m4 sherman
T34 wins hands down.
@@jonnybravo3055 well you had a much higher chance to survive in an m4 sherman than in the russian t-34
@@mrwehraboo5478 The T34 is widely regarded as the best massed produced tank of WW2. Soviet tank crews hardly had any training to get familiar with there tanks when they looked like they were going to lose the war. American and British crews were a lit better trained. T34 tanks had lasting effect on tank design. The combination of The 76mm gun , mobility with its speed and wide tracks and armour which was sloped and lower profile than many tanks of the time made it a great tank. The Germans copied the design in the Panther. Shemans were not good tanks. They were only good because of the industrial might of the US and the numbers produced.
Considering his obvious biast even if he compares the T-34 to an M1A2 the T34 is going to win
@@kaloyandraganov9462 kinda impossible considering the m1a2 tank cannon had more penetration than the russian 85mm on the t-34 and lets not even talk about the armor on the t-34 it breaks much faster than the sherman hell even panzer 3 hullbroke the t-34 in barbarossa
Question: why didn’t we lose a single M1 to t72 during 91?
Because Iraqi T-72´s wasn´t even on T-72A level, and their crews sucked.
The iraqi was too poor to buy T72A so they decided to Buy T72M which is a sacm tank from Poland and got scammed as well from USSR by buying old ammunition for the tanks
So the iraqi gone to war blindly with those
This time we lost alots Abrams and T72
Thanks To shithead buyers
Dennis Bell Because the M1 could outrange the t72. The engagements mostly happened out of t72 range. Also the crew sucks.
Hazardous I’m aware of the range, but the rounds of the t72 also were ineffective.
USMC 74-87
Well made and researched video but if I were you I'd put like title cards for each of the years so its easier to find which section you are talking about.
Few things I noticed:
No mention of L26 round (not L26A1 used with 120mm L30) for the British which the Challenger 1 used in the gulf war, though no idea on introduction date. Not sure weather it would have been able to penetrate T-80U either but would have been better than L23/L23A1.
Also the L23A1 was introduced in 1985 so you could have mentioned that in the 1985 section rather than 1989. Yes you're right in saying this wouldn't have reliably been able to penetrate T-80U.
Also if you're going by "Cold war" then technically T-90 doesn't fit this list as it was accepted into service after the Soviet union had disbanded, although it was developed during the timeframe so ill allow it.
Hello RedEffect where are you from ? just curious coz accent. Thx for good informative stuff.
You can't guess?
@@yereverluvinuncleber and you are RedEffect ?
Grindererr Official I think he’s Australian 😂 🇦🇺
I think hes from Balkans.Possibly Serbia
@Grindererr Official Your lack of real-worldliness makes me assume you are American but most likely a Britisher with no experience of the world, that might fit. I can tell who you are without even hearing your accent. And yes Red Effect is definitely Indian. :)
More like ~600mm of RHA equivalent for the turret protection vs KE for baseline M1A1 from 1985.
So the M1A2 should be better in war thunder? The leopard 2a6s dm53 should not be able to pen the turret cheeks?
M1 NEVER USED M735! This is a point of contention even on the Warthunder forums and with people who actually crewed the early Abrams. The M735 was trailed with the early XM1 prototypes as well as the final prototype produced by GDLS but the M1 when it entered service used M774 APFSDS. It's also worth noting that not but a few years later M833 was introduced. Also while Commander didnt have his own night sight he wasn't blind at night because the Field of View on the Thermal sight was large enough for the commander to look for targets even if he had to share it with the Gunner. Also its worth noting that Thermal provided far superior target acquisition compared to Soviet passive IR night vision which had poor edge clarity and poor field of view the commander as well had PVS-4 weapon scope and PVS-5 or PVS-7 gen 2night vision goggles for manuvering at night which was far superior to Russian tankers passive IR goggles which relied heavily on IR illumination from the gunners IR lamp to see this also made them a huge target because to anyone night vision the Soviet IR flood lamp would stick out like a sore thumb and compromise their location to the enemy.
When ever red uploads a video about abrams....
Ah shit here we go again
really a bummer you couldnt talk about the leopard 2a5, since it was introduced in 1990, and formally introduced in 1993. But its ok.
M1 entered service with M774 APFSDS which was better than M735 but it wasnt that much better
It had far superior 60° penetration which is really important with soviet tanks which have highly angled armor.
That may be so but the round performed much better against angles which gave the M1 an advantage against T-72s with their angled upper front plates.
pls you can make a video on the italian c1 Ariete MBT?
Historical accuracy isn’t true. Developers of war thunder often make mistakes and may take up to maybe 2 years to fix them
@Bleagle its not to do with balance its to do with the lack of knowledge even though the community blatantly points it out. The M60A1 Ariete was a premium that had its stabiliser removed even though the stabiliser was virtually the only selling point about the tank.
@@domeboymemus848 tbh they get so much stuff from everywhere ist no wonder they often Need time to fix stuff you dont just have 1 community Screaming at them its dozen (different languages) About the italian M60A1 well Maybe ist true what they did also when ist only selling Point idk what you talk About with the improved A1 Turret on 7.7 is very powerful
also they try to Keep a balance between fun(balance) and realism which is Always good or bad depending on who you ask
Leclerc is one of the two NATO tanks equipped with autoloader. The other one being kyu maru Shiki. And K2 Panther but that doesn't fit in cold War time frame.
Also you should explain manual vs autoloader - NATO tanks have 2 tap advantage, 1 in chamber, 2nd round already on loaders hip, fire, extract fumes and quick reload - that's the double tap
bruh, the only NATO tank you mentioned here is Leclerc lol
@@Kalashnikov413 RoK is partner across the globe in NATO since 2005
@@ArreatPLvro That doesn't mean they're part of NATO, my friend
@@Kalashnikov413 your nick is too russian to trust you on NATO. Japan is also partner to NATO
@@ArreatPLvro again, that doesn't mean they're part of NATO
T55, T62 and T72 were the backbone of soviet divisions. Many european countries still relayed on Leo1, M60, M48 and AMX, en pair with latest T55 but inferior to T72.
No one knows what the challenger can stop as the armour is secret. So don't where you are getting your stats form. I know this the challenger armour was better than M1 hence why the Americans started using cobom instead off laminated steel
uk spartan 2 There’s documents saying the challengers armor.
Yea you can take control of the tanks mentioned in the video in war thunder.... but only after you paid around 500€ or played several years....
i think a more accurate comparison would be the T72B Obr. 1989
Were Russian tankers on these newer tanks usually professionals, or also conscripts? That might be a factor against all-professional US tank crews. I'm not trying to throw shade at the Russians. It's just that highly trained pros usually do better than the latter, no matter willingness or bravery. Again, I'm not going after Russian tank crews, I'm just curious if that would change your calculations. But I'm only asking because I have no clue as to what types of crews the Russians were fielding during each period. Great video, btw. Very informative. Thanks!
I know this is late but heres your awnser
The ussr had about 1.2-1.7 million professinal soldigers these guys were going to be fighting in t-80s for the most part the soviet army function on a eqiuipment surplus syteme were they had all the equipment ready to go to call millions of reservists into service at a moments notice some estimates go as high as ten million extra soldigers. Most soviet divsions were skeletion crew formed mostly of mantince personel officers and concrrpits learing how to fight and most of the time tgese division were at about 25% full streagth these moblization divisions whould take the older tank models
But the pros were going to get the best of the best the t-80s and later t-72 varients
My man RE with another great vid that isn't Challnger 2 vs T14. Come on dude when are you going to drop it on us?!
Hm, I would have really liked to actually use one of those other tanks for once. During my time at the military I have been a gunner on Leopard 2A5 and left right before the upgrade to 2A6. During this time, we had literally tons of shooting challenges against US Army tank platoons using the M1A2. I have no idea whether the M1A2 is only a paper-tiger (great numbers on paper, but not performing accordingly) or whether US tank platoons just get the poorest training possible on them. As a matter of fact, during my first combat practice I had been a gunner on the Leopard for 2 months(!!) and we destroyed the US counterparts to a degree where they rejected to complete the challenge and called it a day earlier. I think they scored just a hand full of hits at all during movement throughout the entire day whereas our precision was almost the same, independent of us moving or standing still.
So again, no idea if that was the tank, or individual quality (which I cannot believe since those guys had already been deployed in combat before and knew their tanks in and out), but the difference was huge.
Also, we can debate a lot about how good DU-penetrator 105mm might have been, or rather not, but I guess there was a reason behind the US starting to implement a slightly adapted version of the Rheinmetal gun on the M1.
One more thing that was mentioned here jokingly a few times, but that is hard for you to put into such videos: Crew comfort actually means a big deal. I have only been sitting in M1A2, T72 and Leopard 2A5 and none of the other more modern MBTs, but if you have to stay in there closed hatch for a few days, trust me, you would want a Leopard, maybe an M1, definitely not a T72! Balistically it absolutely makes sense to build the tanks more flat and with nice inwards angles, but that heavily cuts down space for the crew as well as proper seats and generally the ability to stretch yourself every once in a while or even boil and eat something small.
Hmm.. strange how the Leopard had more time on the video and second in line from Abraham's, I never realized it was a senior partner in NATO Ahead of the British despite its British Main Gun
Abrams, not "Abrahams"
@@Oxide21 google spell, keep your hair on!
@@TOYSOLDIERREVIEW Are you saying that's how Google spells it? It's still wrong. You still call it Abrams.
here is issue. Looking at performance, not price. So one ultra modern tank vs 100 modern tanks for same price. is it fair to compare them 1v1 or 1v100? German tigers never were knocked out with penetration to front armor, but there were seas of garbage t34 which were unreliable as hell etc, yet they won. Quantity over quality sometimes matters and quality costs.
This isn't war thunder there is no garbage just different doctrines
Would be good to include parameters like maintenence ease (for example how much time does it take to swap engines) or crew survivability (like comparing M1s ammo stores and Challenger ammo stores) Crew comfort and internal/external storage space, Range and mobility ( it is rather important most soviet tanks couldnt turn in place) etc .Those are rather important factors. In this video its rather important to mention the armour comparison in front turret armour coverage. Most allied tanks have rougky equal turret coverage (except the Leopard 2a4 weakspot and the weak armoured Leclerc Mantlet) but in Soviet tanks turrets got only the cheeks armoured and th turret center has gaps in both special armour and reactiva armour. And that is a large gap. In order to make a video like this it needs those considerations included
russian tanks would still take the 1st place, nothing more rugged than those things, ease of repair and maintenance. Crew comfort is very subjective, you get used to everything with time.
@@panterka.f russian tanks are famous maintenence monsters. In fact take days to what nato tanks do in hours
This video is a partial failure not taking into account some of the tanks that were available to NATO in large numbers. The Chieftain MKIX to XII that had TOGs, stillbrew and other enhancements similar to the Challenger MkI , NATO had hundreds of capable Chieftains available so it ought to be included. French AMX30s need to be added to the list despite not being that capable, they existed and can't be ignored. France could still be considered part of NATO if not active in its command and control.
What happened to Challenger II?
Challenger 2 was introduced in the late 90's, so after the cold war.
@DarkstarTendor I talk about both DM23 and DM33 in the video, I dont speak year per year, so when I speak about 1985 I say how Germans had already developed DM23 at the time, when I speak about 1989 I say how Germans had developed DM33.
This video is about brand new generations of MBT at the time, if I was to speak about every possible tank that existed at the time this video would be 5 hours long, Soviets had upgraded their T-62 and T-55 tanks to oblivion, US had their M60 variants, Germany had Leopard 1s, etc. etc.
@redeffect - I appreciate that but considering that Chieftain was still being upgraded when Challenger came out and was a capable enough tank with many of the enhancements that Challenger I had, it seems only correct to include it. There were hundreds facing the Warsaw Pact and the Chieftain, despite being old, set the style for all future NATO MBTs. With armour upgrades, TOGs and the 120mm it was capable of firing APDFS and HESH in lethal amounts against Soviet armour. Chieftain wasn't the best but crewed well, it was certainly better than all that previous generation US armour with just the 105mm L7. Your video title does not state the best of the late cold war, it merely states a time and the Chieftain was still in the brew and would have mixed it with the best of them, British tank crews being surprisingly good in combat rather than just excelling in competitions.
@@yereverluvinuncleber whats the point of including it, it would clearly fall behind most of the tanks I included, and Soviets upgraded their T-55A and T-62 tanks to more modern standard in 1980-81, I didnt include them either because they were still inferior to the 3rd gen MBTs that were popping out at the time, if you are going to make a comparison you should make it fair, Chieftain, T-62M, etc. are inferior in both protection and mobility to the tanks of the period, they wouldnt be a match for Leopard 2, Abrams and T-80.
No Chieftains?
Hey what’s your favorite source for all this tank information. Would love to check it out
russian sekrit dokuments
Check out the description
I read US tankers called the additional frontal turret armor on T tanks the dolly parton and super dolly parton mod
If talking about NATO, what about the Challenger?
What about whatching the whole video?
Yea no idk where u got those values for the leopard 2a4 but it was way less againts apfsds t 72 t80 by far best armor and best firepowerd just slow
I mean 105mm cannons with m60 tanks used by the marines and reserve natuonal guard units did kill T72 tanks in desert storm in very limited actions
Well some Iraqi T72 is not made by russian, but locally produced..and for your information the Iraqi steel quality really bad and I mean it really that bad bcuz the amount of sulfurs is more than composition of the steel itself.thats really made the steel is not strong although the thickness is really thick
@@TheMalayTanker05 if only Iraqis had salenium lol
@@Timber_LXG_5 fr lmao
please do a video on weaknesses in Al Khalid tank
RedEffect Please can u tell me what is the armor (im MM) on the T-80 BV with Kontakt-1 is it around 530 mm like t-72B? (against Apfsds)
This reply is pointless but
Kontact 1 doesn't affect apfsds
RedEffect will you make vidoe about why soviets kept such terrible revese speed on their tanks?