I was a gunner on the platoon leaders tank. It’s all about target acquisition and not presenting a silhouette. Sights are mounted on top of the turret so the tank can be hidden yet the gunner can still identify and lock onto a target. Move forward to clear the barrel fire and return. With thermals troops and vehicles can be identified.
Former Tank Platoon Leader here. Your last line about the crew being less expendable than the vehicle hit the nail on the head. A fully trained tank crew is very hard to replace on short notice, and to train a full crew cost more than the tank. Russia's biggest problem in the Ukraine isn't the lack of crews, but a lack of crews that know what they're doing. Conscripts with less than a year of training, and vehicles not being maintained.
@@markpozsar5785 I'll be going a little in depth here because I have no idea of your understanding of the US Army's Armor program. There is no published source that I was able to find. I had to take the 22 weeks each individual member goes through when first joining the military, then take that into account for each crew member. Each crew member is at a different level in their term of service with usually the loader being the FNG "Fu**ing New Guy", then the driver who typically already has 2 years in service and is no longer the FNG, then the gunner who usually has 3 to 4 years in service and has served his time in the other 2 positions, up to the TC (Tank Commander), who is required to be at a minimum of a E-5 SGT, but according to the TOE (table of organization) is allocated to be an E-6 SSG. To sum it up, a trained crew is an ever ongoing thing with the senior man usually a SSG already having 5 to 6 years in service. Meaning you have to take his pay for 5 to 6 years add that to the next guy with 4 to 5 years and so on down the line. Starting from the top down with that E-6 with his pay and allowanced and the training he's gone through to attain his position, that may give you an idea of the complexity of your question. Hope you understand. I didn't just pull it out of my ass, but knew from experience that it's true.
@@markpozsar5785 It's not likely to be true. In the late 1970s an XM1 crew had an annual training cost of about $20,000. The modern M1A1 is supposed to be around $6 million a unit. Even if training costs have since gone up to $100,000 a year, you'd still be training your crew for 60 years before you met the base cost of the tank. You could also say that a highly skilled crew is more important that the quality of the tank, but that isn't true either, In Desert Storm, relatively inexperienced US rank crews went up against hardened Iraqi veterans and tore them to pieces. It wasn't even close. The difference came in technology, effective combined arms, high quality intelligence gathering, responsive tactics and leadership. Getting into the enemy's OODA loop and staying there was a key factor.
In 95 when I was stationed at fort hood, my infantry platoon was attached to a tank company. We did a force on force where one tank would defend against the whole company. After 3 hours the tank was finally killed after he had killed all four Bradley’s and 10 other tanks. In 99 when I was a bradley gunner in Germany I used the same tactics and our one bradley fought off and killed 12 out of 13 other Bradley’s. We used the berm drill tactic, you come up till just the optic is over a reserve slope, then you pull up just far enough so the gun clears the iv line and engage. You kill one or two vehicles then back down till your optic is able to see then move at least 100 meters to left or right, and repeat.. never come up twice in same spot, and never have the driver slam the gas (black smoke from exhaust), creep up slowly.
kind of the unique thing you only can do with a tank. no other weapon system lets you drive a large piece of artillery up to the enemy, fire, and duck back under cover before they know what hit them, and move as fast
Also to mention, having a tank and an military that priorities crew safety creates high morale and soldiers feel confident that makes them perform better
Good point. Looking at the level of fuckery against the Russian grunts by the Kremlin, their 'green wienie' has reached sizes that are theoretically impossible.
Works well until you hear about your buddies who got cooked into the same unpenetrable fortress that's been designed just for your safety... All tanks are vulnerable to antitank systems. They are all the same in that regards, the only difference is made by the fire control system.
And just think how the bad guys feel that are facing you in a T-72 "pop top."" Israeli designs have also stressed this factor, the Merkava Mark IV being the prime example.
Fun fact - Back in 1980 a friend of the family worked at the Warren Tank Plant (Detroit Tank Arsenal) where the first Chrysler Abrams XM-1s were produced (Suck it, Lima). He invited us to their "open house" where 14yr old me got to see a XM-1 do ungoverned 70mph laps around their test track. Pretty cool how the ground shook when it went by. I got bounced around in the back of a M113 too. That was a very fun day.
I was in the Army from 1977 until 1985, was a Tanker that went from M-60 A1 to M1 (105mm version). We could tell when the Mechanics messed with the Gov, it would be the M1 that had thrown the Track or broken Torsion Bars. The TRACK is the limiting factor, not the weight!
As a former infantryman you may be familiar with the “I’m up, he sees me, I’m down” IMT? That’s kind of the concept of the tanks pulling forward to shoot then backing up. Minimizing the exposure time that you are able to be fired on. Not popping up in the same place every time is beneficial if possible.
I was involved with the M-1 tank program after the Army had chosen the Chrysler version as the winner of the runoff. The M-1 still had some changes to be made before going into full release for production and I was part of that evaluation. I remember CBS's "60 Minutes" doing a hit piece on the M-1 at the same time as we were running it hard at Irwin and it really ticked off everyone involved, Military and Civilian. It made my heart proud to see the reports of the M-1's performance in battle in the first gulf war. We all knew the M-1 was going to be a great platform and it was nice to have it proven to the world.
I had two friends in the 3rd Cavalry Regt. who worked (separately, as one was a platoon sergeant and the other a tank commander and they were in different troops) on the testing of the XM1 and also got early production M1s. They loved it. It was fast, well armed and armored, and fairly comfortable for the crew. Even then the fire control was impressive. As one told me, you had to try to miss with the gun. He described easily blowing phone pole targets in half at a mile range while driving at over 40 miles per hour over rough desert terrain.
I remember the Chrysler prototype and the GM one, the Chrysler won out. Yea CBS doing a hit piece on a new US weapons platform was par for the course with MSM back then. They preferred not to have a strong military after Vietnam, but they were only playing into the hands of the Soviets.
I was a kid in the 80’s (or was it the 80’s) and remember one of the networks making a series called “the fleecing of America” and one of the episodes involved talking about how horrible the B1 bomber was.
One of my neighbors worked on the early Abrams. Apparently its turbine engines had sand ingestion problems and caused a breakdown. He has a picture of one of his crew doing a big old double peace sign to the sky from the top hatch of the recovery vehicle. It was towing a broken down Abrams 😅
The Abrams M1 has engine problems, as well as the Russian T-90. and now the Abrams have given Poland.the Russian T-14 has already surpassed everyone, a new concept, new ideas.some may say that the leopard 2A7V is better, but this is not true, because it is necessary to compare..I can't say which of the schools is better western or eastern, both are good.in Ukraine, Russian losses are explained by improper operation, and this does not mean that Russian equipment is bad.
I once got a box of Abrams turbine blades from the hot section of it's engine and was tasked with inspecting them. I looked at them with digital radiography and found they were all full of sand. Turbine blades typically made on inconel often have tiny machined or cast holes in them to pump cooler air through them so that the engine can run at higher temperature. The sand was basically microscopic and had gotten heated enough the melt slightly into tiny glass drops that stuck to the walls inside the blades air passages and built up to the point that they clogged and the blades overheated and started to melt likely causing the engine to stop itself from over temperature warnings. Was one of the cooler things I ever looked at.
As an M60A3 (19e) and M1A1 (19k) Tanker… I loved my M60’s, they fit like well worn and well maintained steel toed boots. Easy to learn and easy to maintain with known quirks that were easy to leverage. I loved my M1A1’s, they fit more like well tailored powered battle armor. Transitioning from the M60A3 to the M1A1 in 1986-87, the Abrams felt like the love child of a Cadillac and a Star Fighter. If The Warsaw Pact had come for us in 1985 (West Germany) we would have been hard pressed. If they had come in 1987… we’d have Smoked them like a Sunday Ham.
I worked on the USAF's M1 equivalent, the F-15. I've been a tank follower from the age of 9 though, and as an airman in 1986 deploying to just west of the Fulda Gap for a Reforger, I felt a lot better with the new M1's and F-15's there. It's incredibly interesting to see the same thought processes going on for both platforms, crew survivability being central to both. Lots of people in the world don't realize that crews make up the armed forces, not equipment, and most of us weren't all that interested in dying for our country, but instead making the enemy die for his.
@@markmclaughlin2690 I Was.. It is... and I had a hand in replacing a Tortion Bar or two on M60-A3's... Guess it's time to call the Butt Doctor... my favorite... NOT!
@@belliott538 I was a 19E, Germany 1985 - 1987. I agree wholly with your assessment of the situation at that time. I do think that even with the M60, we had the upper hand.
Survivability-wise, the Abrams still has it's "explody" ammo separated from the squishy crew. --Still a top notch design feature after all these years.
@@seanheath4492 In separate sealed compartments. The entire ammo load in the bustle can detonate and the crew remains unaffected in the M1. A design feature that can't be retrofitted.
i think the t72 ammo is seporated, but lack lack of blowout panels, combined with the crazy powerful top down attack missles just cut through everything to the ammo storage....
@@specialingu Only the driver is separated from the ammo and then only if the hatch between the gunner and driver is buttoned. If the tank is buttoned, the turret flies off and if the commander's hatch is open, the commander goes ballistic while flames jet from the hatch.
Tanks and Anti-tank weapons have been leapfrogging each other for as long as either has existed. During WW2 more tanks were destroyed by AT guns than anything else. The Matilda II tank during the early war period was extremely well armoured and was invulnerable to enemy fire until the Germans decided to shoot one with an Anti Aircraft gun and found that really worked. After the war, NATO and the Warsaw pact nations rapidly developed weapons using HEAT ammunition. This made steel armour obsolete and many nations started to develop fast, highly manoeuvrable tanks that had very limited armour. A good example of this was the Leopard 1 tank. These tanks used speed to counter enemy Anti-tank weapons and they worked until composite armour and wire-guided missiles were invented. So then came the age of ERA and Applique armour that could counter direct hits from guided missiles, so missiles developed tandem warheads and this was countered by spaced armour. Eventually, you get what you see now, Missiles using multiple attack methods for defeating a tank, for example, Top-down attack modes and tanks starting to implement active protection systems to prevent these missiles from contacting the vehicle. It's a constant race that will see neither Tanks nor AT weapons obsolete in direct, open conflict until the very definition of Open conflict has changed to a point beyond recognition. Maybe space battles will change things.
@knuckler as an 19E/K way back in the "cold war" as an instructor we demonstrated the "sager" dance to the students, which when preformed properly didn't become a "breaking track" class
Also since WWII almost every tank has had an active protection system equipped. It's the little tubes around the tank that look like soda can and the button inside the turret that is labeled smoke. If an enemy can't get a visual on you they can't hit you and most smoke today is made with either red or white phosphorus which helps mask thermal signatures as well.
I was an Abrams crewman. Love every minute of it. As incredible a tank as the M-1 series is, it's true that training, discipline, and morale are the decisive factors. Russian tankers in Ukraine are paying the price for poor training, discipline, and morale, not to mention being abysmally unprepared aggressors. Or the explodey autoloader carousel on the T-72's, T-80's, and T-90's.
Indeed, the US focuses on soldier survivability because training is long and expensive. But also because having experienced crews which live to fight another day means you don't end up with recruits who have no idea what they are doing with most of your tanks as the conflict drags on.
Not only that but you can take a portion of these experienced troops and send them back to be instructors, and cadre for new units that are being stood up. So, the rookies have been trained by people who know what works and what doesn't, and 'green' units are led by a cadre of experienced troops.
@@Fireclaws10 I don't know about Israel, WW2 and Vietnam also taught a lot to America about why experienced soldiers are important. They really struggled with a lack of skilled soldiers and relied on conscription, which didn't work out for them. After Vietnam, the Army underwent big reforms in basically all aspects like training, equipment and tactics.
that's why they were the leaders in having the ammo cook off up and out of the tank, probably the biggest advance in keeping armor crews alive since the tank was made.
@@keithbrain1169 It's more the other way around. They understood crew survivability was important after blowing themselves up in their tanks in Vietnam. Then they got the idea that quality should come before price in terms of priority. And that's how you get an Abrams. I wish Cappy would have covered this subject, it's part of what made the Abrams so revolutionary.
Well presented. I’m an old M1A1 tank commander in the US Army. Before 911 we spent all our time training in combined arms to fight the Russian hoard. Most of the time in MOPP 2 or MOPP 4. After 911 in Iraq we drove around until something blew up or we got called to end an insurgent attack. Modern M1A2 with well trained crews, active protection systems and a clear well executed combined arm doctrine can still decide a battle.
great to hear from a tank commander , I have a ton of respect for Abrams operators - its takes a well trained crew to keep those things keeping us safe
Michael Wittmann , the German Tank Ace in WW2 (cough, cough) said that while he got all the glory, he could only do what he did because he and his crew basically worked on a near telepathic level.
It's a fact that like minded people who spend a lot of time together and experience the same situations together "synch up." I've experienced this myself. While it's true that an incredible amount of information can be communicated in this state, I think the greater part of it is that you're already thinking the same things and you know exactly how the other person/people that you're synched up with will react considering each other's slightly different vantage points.
@@jessep926 I mean “The German propaganda machine swiftly credited Wittmann, by then a household name in Germany, with all the British tanks destroyed at Villers-Bocage.”
Veterancy is very important when it comes to tankers. If there is anything we can learn from WW2 or any conflict with heavy use of armor we can see that an experienced crew is an actual force multiplier. There are plenty of cases where a veteran crew makes the difference in combat. Especially when it comes to things like tanks and planes. Can't forget to mention how important stuff like this is with fighter pilots aswell.
Yes. Experience is a must. There is a story from the end of WW2 about an Elephant commander who panicked under fire and told his driver to turn the tank around so that they could retreat. The frontal armour could stop all the incoming rounds, but the commanders decision exposed the weaker side armour to the Allies...
@@WOLVESOFWARGAMING Whilst this is true. A squad on the ground that is well trained, coordinated and effective could decide the outcome of a firefight and have a real impact. However, when it comes to armor or aircraft, systems that have potential to have a way bigger importance and effect on the battlefield, at least in theory. The chance for training and experience to be even more of a linchpin factor is very high. At the same time, the lack of said experience and training has the potential to be more disastrous to the outcome of whatever objective is at hand. In other words, a mistake is usually more expensive. An example would be a situation where a helicopter is bringing troops in to an area of operations and upon dropping off the men onboard one of the soldiers gets shot. This sucks of course but the mission might not be at risk. However, if the pilot of this helicopter makes a mistake where he maybe takes too long to maneuver in to the correct position for the troops to disembark. He could be giving the enemy time to maybe hit the aircraft with RPGs or the like. This could potentially lead to everyone on the helicopter being killed and thus put the entire mission at risk. This is just one scenario that could occur of course but I think you understand what I'm getting at.
I think the most overlooked part about the Abrams in combat is that an Abrams almost never goes into combat alone. Joint operations has become fundamental to US military success and almost without exception the Abrams will not fight without some combination of infantry, CAS, and artillery supporting it. Russia's largest mistake in Ukraine so far has been a massive inability to conduct joint operations in any sort of meaningful way. Many things lead to this but the results speak for themselves. From the bad training to the dry rotted support vehicles, from the discontinued dual band AlibExpress radios some crews are using to the lackluster air support, There's a whole grocery list's worth of incredibly stupid and avoidable mistakes that have essentially crippled Russia's ability to conduct joint operations & thus left their armor vulnerable to almost constant attack. TL;DR: Nobody fights alone & Russia tried to Thunder Run without bringing the thunder.
In WWII, when Germany invaded the USSR, Soviet tank designs were so vastly superior their best kit was borderline invulnerable - German infantry derisively nicknamed their standard (37mm) ATG 'the doorknocker' because it was literally useless (bonk?). Despite this the Red Army was essentially destroyed in its entirety in both '41 and '42 - German success on all fronts basically rested on Stukas and towed flak (88mm) providing the muscle for their actually shitty tanks. The Panzer divisions were strong because they embodied the combined-arms concept in organization and control, and it took the Allies a minute (roughly two years) to deal with it by basically emulating it.
I don't think this point about American combined arms success versus Russian failures in Ukraine has been overlooked, but point taken and well spoken except unlike you, Im not sure much of that grocery list of mistakes were avoidable. Their military doctrine is fundamentally flawed all the way down to the platoon level. The only thing they seem to know how to do well is murder civilians.
@@onylra6265 That's partially true. I mean it is true what you wrote, but German asset was some terrible german word I can't find which meant that any commander had to 1. be able to take over and manage unit 'notch' higher 2. understand mission for his unit 3. DELEGATE as much as possible notch lower.
@@onylra6265 soviet tanks where not vastly superior to german tanks. In '41, most of the soviet armor was srill using BTs, which where quite handidly bested by German Panzer IIIs and IVs. The only deficiencthe germans had was not fielding a 50mm anti tank gun earlier and designing a short 75mm instead of a long 75mm. Soviet armor problems where handidly solved by both of these changes, although by then ther germans had different issues to solve.
I was an M1 A1, A2 Turret, and Hull mechanic and tracked recovery specialist. It will do just fine so long as the crews stay well trained and continue to practice and stay qualified.
I was on the XM1 project in the 70's. This was the Abrams at the start. They did ergonomics testing with armor crewman on mockups. When we saw the video footage of the main gun shooting at high speeds, we about crapped. When Desert Storm came into play, we cheered when we saw the devastation they caused in desert warfare that we all were anxious about under the old M60A1.
Crew survivability may be a “cold” calculation, but there’re a number of important issues that address. We have had, since 1971 or 72 an all-volunteer force. Bringing back the Draft now would require a political situation we’ve not seen since Pearl Harbor - so, to maintain the willingness for fight and general popularity of the military as a career choice, survivability in combat MUST be and remain an emphasis.
This is correct. Moreover, the US learned the hard way that conscripts don't make good soldiers in a foreign war. In fact, I'd argue that conscription is really only useful if you need large numbers of meat shields to hold off an invader until the real professionals can arrive to do the heavy lifting.
@@Schwarzvogel1 Well, if you can convince the large majority of your population of the necessity of a given war, I think conscripts CAN fight well, particularly given needed training and support. But certainly, the way Putin is trying to use them in Ukraine is a recipe for massive casualties, or mutinies.
Not only is training and maintaining a certified crew expensive (because for every 4 meatballs taking up arms, there's more and more support personnel) but SO IS PAYING SGLI COMPENSATION (Soldiers Group Life Insurance) and VA bennies. Full spectrum casualty economics. It was always said its cheaper to double the cost of a guy who lives than pay out for the guy who dies.
If your country is attacked conscripts can fight and fight well. Israel is proof that conscripts will willingly push themselves to be the best they can be due to the security situation Israel faces. By the same token conscripts who are used to invade a foreign country usually lack the motivation to fight.
Look, no matter what you replace the tank with, you will still end up with some form of tank until we pass gunpowder weapons. UGVs will just lead to more armoured UGVs. UAVs will be countered with heavier active protections. And you will always need something to breakthrough a defensive formation unless you want to end up in trench warfare. Tank isnt obsolete. It needs to update like everything else.
People often forget that War is a Team effort, Tanks are not indestructible, Drones and anti Tank weapons really work great against Tanks, that dosent mean that there is Anything wrong with Tanks it just means that you need something to counter that.
The US from what I can tell has no issue with these things, because their Army seems to have a firm understanding of maneuver warfare, unlike the Russian Federation, who seem to be deploying tanks without the most basic of maneuver fundamentals, such as infantry-scout screens for the tanks.
I was in Iraq for Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Delta Company 2/66 armor. During a night battle, the word that "there are no friendlies to your front" was passed down. Unfortunately, bravo company 3/66 armor was advancing on the left flank of delta company 2/66, but in the confusion of night warfare (GPS was still very rudimentary and not integrated yet and there was no such thing as IFF for ground vehicles) started to get off course and crossed in front of delta by accident. Before this mistake had been realized, gunners in delta had shot and killed 2 tanks belonging to bravo 3/66 including the company commander's tank (B-66). Captain Ingram called cease fire as soon as it was apparent the tanks he was shooting at were not enemies, but in the TIS (thermal image sight) a tank at 3,000m looks a lot like any other tank. The ground we crossed was almost totally flat with zero vegetation so engagement range was further than usual. Some days later I was also in the recovery team that recovered the two destroyed B 3/66 tanks. On B-66 I counted a total of 17 penetrator strikes, of which only one actually penetrated. These are all 120mm depleted uranium APFSDS penetrators we're talking about, with 17 hits to the turret and hull but only one penetration. That one hit the turret ring on the starboard side of the tank, passing through the body of the gunner on it's way through the turret, but I couldn't find any exit hole. The other 3 crew members of B-66 made it out of the tank mostly unharmed before the ammunition ready rack exploded, blowing the blast panels off the top of the turret and scattering fully intact DU penetrators all around the tank. Of the other bravo tank that was hit, all 4 crew members survived. So that is how survivable the M1 tank is, how well the crews are trained (survivability, gunnery, etc) and how tough the armor on the M1A1 HA that we ere driving was. Cappy says the newer Russian ATGMs would kill it, but I'm not so sure. My sources in the armor community have also told me that recently a lot of M1 tanks have been fitted with the Trophy APS, which combined with armor and reactive armor, would probably make the SEPv3 nearly invulnerable to anything that's not a top-down attack. Try shooting a T72 17 times and see how many of those Russians are walking away from it.
Outstanding discussion of the M1 Abrams in combat and the incredible high level of survivability. I strongly believe that with the US's Combined OPS and some support with our Allies, ALL russian armor would be destroyed and their retreat would lead to the capitulation of Putin's desire of an Empire.
Former M1 TC here, One of the biggest differences between the M1 family and the T-whatevers is that the M1's ammo is stored separately behind a two inch thick door in a compartment with pressure relieving blow off panels to vent the explosion and cook offs to the outside, away from the crew compartment. So long as the loader stays away from the knee switch for the armored doors, the crew will likely survive, albeit deafened! The T-64 -72 -80 and -90 have ammo carousels exposed in the crew compartment!
Many crews would send a round down range while the ammo door was still closing without realizing it. A good loader knows the 2 second delay after you Take your knee off knee switch so as soon as the door is opened you take your knee off the switch before grabbing the next round, so by the time you hump that round in the door is closed. If you didn't do that and hold knee on switch the whole time while taking the round out the door will close around 2 seconds after round is loaded.
I seen a tank burn up an blow off panels fly at Brookhaven range back in 2002 from loader switching rounds in between engagements and didn't realize he as putting a round back in the ready rack that was cooking off and it blew up in his hands and set the ready rack off. I saw it all happen on the first BP pulling gate guard. Whe that happened the driver passed out from th halon because he couldn't get his hatch opened fast enough because it was nighttime engagements and the old night sight was in with the wing nuts. The tank drove for 20 minutes at idle speed across all the rough terrain and nobody could stop it. The panic and screaming was unbelievable. The flames white above 50 ft trees man. The tank finally stopped ar end of range when it hit a big tree. The drivers name was Robert white from Maryland and he actually didn't burn just died from smoke inhalation and the loader Christopher Murodas from little Rock Arkansas burned alive. I just hung out with Chris at lake Blora the weekend before and was and was water skiing with him. I was Aco 3/67 pulling support and they where Cco 3/67. The tc and gunner actually made it out alive with minor burns but SSG Steele who was the tc was relieved and sent to another unit while the gunner Nolan lost his mind from the guilt and was chaptered out. The whole thing was very sad and crazy as shit to watch. It definitely fucked my mind up. Our DS in basic told us we will see people due in training and I didn't belive it. I also seen one of our tanks with the turret blown off in OIF1. It was A33 3/67 armor. Very fucked up times that I think of almost every day of my life especially IRAQ
@@imlurkn5291 That's a really hard story to read, so I know it was hellish to actually live it! I'm so sorry that you had those experiences. In training, I climbed into the driver's hatch once and it reeked of pine oil. When I asked the mechanic why, he said they he had just finished cleaning the brains of the prior mechanic out. Apparently, the driver had PMCS'd the tank, noted that the Halon bottle was showing empty and deadlined it. The mechanic was going to replace the Halon bottle and when he cracked the nut to remove the empty one, 800 psi took his head off. He hadn't put the safety pin back in since he thought there was no pressure, but it was a faulty gage that was reading 0 psi, not an empty bottle. What has helped me deal with the thoughts and memories of dead friends, has been to focus solely on the good times, like your water skiing weekend for example, and to cherish the brief times we had peace. Even today we could lose more friends to drunk drivers (like my dad who was killed when I was 16), accidents and disease. I try to value today more than ever. I pray that helps a little bit. I have also surrendered to Jesus Christ and learned that people are going to mostly reject Him and be damned, so I work hard to be kind and show the hateful world His love for them...whether they accept it or not. The inner peace and contentment that my faith brings me every day is precious. I would recommend that to everyone, even if it turns out that the Bible was B.S.
@@purelife9000 Man that is so sad about the Halon bottle killing that soldier in the drivers hole. I worked for GDLS for 10 years and have replaced many bottles and pinning them is an absolute must. It's very very serious thing even if the gage reads zero and this is that prime example of why you should always pin it. That could have happened to anyone. That's really sad man. When I worked for GDLS I almost messed up big-time when was in a rush and forgot to zero the hydrolic pressure before I took the filters off the goose neck on the reservoir for annual services. The one on the left came off as Normal which made me think everything was fine then when I got the the one on the right I could barely turn it but my stupid ass stayed persistent. Finally after maybe half a turn straining all muscles I looked up at the pressure gage and it was at like 1000+ psi. I felt so stupid but also majorly releaved. I also learned that yes the filter on the left will come off as normal with no pressure and the one on the right is holding the pressure if its not zeroed. Not saying I would have died but it wouldnt have been good lmao. I've had some close calls in tanks that people probably would think I'm full of shit but as you know shit happens on those killing machines. The craziest thing that ever happened to me on a tank was gunnery table 7 in Germany. I was a fast loader so I was loading for another crew with a new gunner that had a habit of saying "on the way" at the same time he squeezed trigger. We had a misfire because the breech didn't come all the way up when the round was loaded(I know you know exactly what I'm saying) so I took the breech operating handle and started beating on the bottom to make the breech come up those last 2" so the firing pin can touch the primmer. The problem was my dumbass didn't disarm the main gun like I was supposed to but THANK GOD I kept my head back all the way close to the ready ammo door and far from the breech. When I got it up to fire I can't even remember what I said but all I know is SPC Rouge squeezed those Cadillacs while he said "ON THE WAY" and I got hit in the CVC with the last 1"or so of recoil. I swear on my life I'm not lying to you, It didn't even hurt because it was at the very end of recoil and just smacked my cvc. If my head was up close to the breech I'd be dead for sure. I wasn't smart enough to disarm main gun in heat of the moment of the engagement but thank God I was smart enough to keep my head all the way back. The look on the gunner and tc and my face had to have been priceless. I'm very thankful I kept my head back man. But thank you for those kind words and I do struggle with God and angry at everything. Hope you have a great day and thanks for sharing that with me. RIP to the soldier died from the Halon bottle
I lost it when I saw the Charlie brown Christmas tree on that Abrams turret at the end! Someone took great pride in securing it to the turret knowing it was going to be in a photo op.
Tanker here, the other point of berm drills where we start low is we're almost completely hidden until ready to engage, then only the turret is exposed when firing, which has the strongest armor.
Yup and hull down tactics have been a hallmark of US and NATO tank tactics since WW2. That's why NATO tanks are so tall in comparison to Russian/Chinese ones.
@@mrvwbug4423 They are tall due to being livable for the crew. Soviet tanks have poor gun depression and lack any space inside plus 20 tons of armor in order to be small and low. Soviet terrain is also mostly flat so the design ignores any need to depress the gun as much as NATO tanks which have to fight in all kinds of terrain. Combat in a Soviet tank wears the crew out.
This has been done since WW2. Problem nowadays is drones, artillery and ATGM´s. Tanks simply do not have the same level of protection they used to have. This might be changing right now with modern APS.
@@mrvwbug4423 NATO tanks are so tall because they do not use an auto loader. This kind of tactics have been used since WW2 by all parties. It is not like just the west came up with the idea to stay behind cover.
@@sierraecho884 Exactly. But the combat tactics the Soviets appear to be using are not what they did in WW2 nor what their training for operations in NWE is. So, what are they doing and why?
Yet another ex tanker here and you hit the nail on the head with this video, especially that last bit. While at NTC my tank was one of the deadliest tanks there and that was because the four of us were very familiar with our tank and commands rarely had to be given on when to move, when to load a round or anything like that. Our training is phenomenal and so are our tanks.
I was stationed at Ft. Bliss when the first production M1 was delivered for the 3rd ACR in 1981. While a group of officers and NCOs were chatting about it, a friend and I climbed all over it, looking inside the turret and checking how thick the armored skirt was. It took about ten minutes before the guys from 3rd ACR noticed that both of us had Air Defense shoulder patches, not cavalry ones, so we were summarily ordered to depart. I'd already seen the XM1 all too closely when it was being tested at McGregor range when it jumped twenty feet clear across the road our van was driving on, missing us by about ten feet. 😬
Tanks fight like infantry. Fire and move. The infantryman, ideally, does not stay in place in a trench line to fire constantly from the same position, but moves between positions between engagements. This makes him harder to hit and focus down by the enemy, since his position is not known. Even at its simplest level, ducking down between engagements means you're not exposed during a reload, etc. The tanks observe similar protocol. Reloading in cover, observing the battlefield with only the commander's sight visible, and where possible, change firing positions between shots to keep the enemy from having their weapons pre-aimed at them the next time they emerge to take a shot.
Yep, berm drills are the foundation of gunnery. You're very correct. As one section is dropping down into defilade, the other is up engaging. Same when bounding by section. The possible ATGM team already has guns on it as soon as they pop up.
My dad was a fuel truck driver during the Gulf War (not deployed). Killing the logistians can be catastrophic. The Abrams, like any other tank since there insemption is a thirsty girl... even compared to heavy trucks.
Actually the tanks role when supporting the Mechanized is to provide support by fire from a good hull down position. on the commander's call they can go from support by fire to attack by fire. You dont need to be so close to engage the enemy. Civilians need to understand that. This is not world of tanks or war thunder where facehugging is prevalent. If the tanks have to move positions they will do it in sections and as Bounding technique so that one section covers the other. They will NOT move as one platoon. Here is the kicker: When you set up in the initial support by fire, You have 2 designated fallback positions for the platoon, a route to infil and exfil and a secondary support by fire position already preplotted by the commander as per company overlay. All of this informations is briefed at the OPORD and task organized by the commander.
Agreed. I think we can see the effectiveness of the shoot-and-scoot tactics employed by the Ukrainian infantry squads while most Russian tank columns just stopped where they were, not having a clue to what they ought to do next. I think the takeaway from this is to build equipment around the brains that is going to use them. This is were a professional army trumps a conscript army anytime. Ukrainians were drilled to the max by their NATO trainers since 2014, now we see the fruits of their labor.
i was on m1a1 in the army in the early 2000s... I don't know where these guys always get their speed numbers for this tank... it went much faster than I have ever heard from these kinds of videos. The thing was a beast. Unless you've actually been on one and done some maneuvers, you just can't understand, haha. The tank is quiet enough to be sitting in a slight depression, just off the road (in the woods), and have a humvee drive by without noticing you. Its crazy. On asphalt, you actually hear the track thumping the ground before the engine. Alas, the army and I didn't get along, but I still love this tank.
@@AlexandarHullRichter usually the engine is governed to avoid running down the engine lifetime during operations which limits speed. When that governor is taken off the Abrams can allegedly hit almost 70mph with that 1500 horsepower engine
For everyone who argues there is no place for the tank on the modern battlefield: The same could be said for; 4 wheeled vehicles, artillery, and the infantry, and it would be just as wrong, because war is hell and tank have it's purpose. Combined arms means just that.
After WW1, they also said tanks were irrelevant. After WW2, they said every branch was irrelevant except the air force and their nuclear-capable bombers and their escorts (later their ICBMs) Before Vietnam, they said tanks and any non-nuclear artillery and heavy weapons were irrelevant (again) During Vietnam, they said dogfights were irrelevant bc of air-to-air missiles During Iraq and Afghanistan, they said there'd never be another conventional war Guess how many times they were wrong
@@SlavGod47 They think they're right 'til proven wrong, Afganistan ,Vietnam are case studies. motivated guys with rifles and RPG's can do a lot if they're willing to take casualties.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see drones on tanks in the future. These tanks already have encrypted wireless networks, so launching spotting drones or even offensive ones does not seem like much of a stretch.
I think a pair of dedicated drone vehicles would go well in a combined arms environment. One command platform and one forward deployed rearmament/refuel platform. Modular drones using AT and/or AP weapons serviced and carried by a vehicle that sits back at about mortar carrier range. Tanks won't carry drones, their mission has always been direct fire, but a system dedicated to the capability would be hugely effective and slot in nicely. It would end up being both cheaper (thus more of them) and more survivable than helicopters that fill that role now.
@@nunyabusiness9433 cheap and small drones could provide a big accuracy boost in some situations, so carrying a few makes sense imo. It would help to spend less time looking for targets and take a lot of the guessing out of the shooting. Dedicated vehicles for launching drones and loitering munitions can definitely be devastating in some circumstances, but those can be launched by infantry as well...
@@b127_1 A drone capable of carrying an ATGM or MG is probably beyond something man portable, and you'd want the infrastructure needs to fall on somebody other than the people fighting what's in front of them. For recon and fire support calls at the platoon level they would absolutely make sense, though, you're right about that, and that's entirely within the wheelhouse of a platoon leader.
@@nunyabusiness9433 yeah, it'll be a while before you can take out a tank with a switchblade. Launching atgm equipped drones in the field would be a massive accomplishment. Then you'd basically have an aircraft carrier on wheels.
While the cost-benefit analysis of survivability systems and training a crew is a thing, the US also has a doctrine of building survivability into its platforms because it reduces recruitment anxiety and increases battlefield morale which translates into operational effectiveness. An infantry unit that knows it has a fearless cadre of medics with a reputation of coming out and saving your ass no matter what, has a massive morale advantage over an infantry unit that does not. And that is success on the battlefield when two near-peer units are grinding away at each other like on Okinawa, and it comes down to who's will is going to break first, the men that know they have Desmond T Doss on their side will prevail. Can I get an an unironic hooah?
Been years since I got out and said it, but... yeah, unironic hooah. The total force working together in a single purpose instills a lot of confidence into troops, no matter their MOS. "One Force, One Fight", it's more than just a slogan.
Yeah the blowout panels in the Abrams make a huge difference for crew survivability. Ammo cookoff in the Abrams will damage the turret, and obviously force a crew evac, but it may not even successfully immobilize the vehicle, much less have the turret join the space program like the T-72. This feels like a pretty direct extension of American vs Soviet tank doctrine in WWII. The American Sherman tank wasn't on paper super amazing when compared with other tanks, but in addition to the simple fact that the Sherman was designed with the grander war in mind (The sherman was easy to service, easy to transport, and light enough to not crush every bridge it had to cross) it also had a high crew survivability. The US lost an average of 1 crewman for every tank lost. This is compared to the T-34, which lost an average of four crewman for every tank lost. American forces learned the value over time of having tank crews that could survive long enough to become seasoned. A skilled crew is difficult to value on paper, but the results in the war were pretty clear with Shermans often batting well above their weight class as an infantry support tank.
@@450Garrett Yeah obviously has nothing to do with the fact that shermans were mostly facing Italian tanks and light German tanks, while T-34's were facing the best that Germany had.
Fascinating that a 40+ year old design was so good it could be updated to be very good today. Obvious it happens (hi B-52) but it's still a tremendously impressive feat of engineering.
M1 was MIC done right, unlike F-35, especially B version, waste of money, James Mathis, eat your heart out. .. and so is AR/M16/4s. Despite many detractors, another well done program.
When we transitioned from the M60 to the M1 in 1988, we used to say the M60 was an $800,000 rolling casket, but when we got the M1, (and it was only the 105 mm), it was like transitioning from a gremlin to a Mercedes! Then in the Gulf war showed how well the M1A1 could operate! I believe if you have a well-trained veteran crew, the M1 will still hold up tank to tank in this modern day!
@@rick-be hard to say javelin in itself have very little explosive power alot of the time you see tanks turret flying is beacuse of ammo cook off abrams have blast panals now no question the javelin could knock out the abrams and mission kill it but i bet there a higher chance of tank crew surviving then your typical russian t series tank
These two guys are pretty good narrators. The guy with the beard seems to understand the topic a bit more than the other guy, but the other guy's still pretty good and he makes up for it by being kinda funny
Great video! The Battle of 73 Easting was definitely proof of the Abrams capability, but also the proof that investing in awareness and training pays dividends. Had the Iraq forces been better trained , maybe it wouldn't have been as completely one sided. Still, the American tankers ran into an Oh Shit scenario and immediately cleaned up. You cant do that without excellent discipline and training. Much respect.
There is a great video on 73 easting from the prospective of a Bradley scout vehicle's commander. The guy tells a great story. Google 73 easting and it pops up.
I think one overlooked part, is not just the cost of training, but rather, a crew that survives a catastrophic event also learns from that. So theres even more of a reason to keep them alive, so others can learn from them, along with them being more effective.
Yes good point. Surviving a tank battle probably gives experience and potentially some critical advice to pass on to whoever you train when you get back
You know before I enlisted I never realized how MASSIVE Abrams tanks were. The first one I ever saw was at Ft. Knox when I was visiting a friend after Air Assault school at Campbell. I remember thinking “Man…that thing must run on pure BDE” 😂. I always thought tankers were cool dudes and during OIF anytime we had Abrams support it made me smile.
@@saltyfloridaman7163 come on they're too full of shit to fit it all in one Gatorade bottle they just use em as piss bottles and shit in shopping bags I kid of course tankers are pretty cool guys especially if you're and engineer, I wonder why? ;)
I saw it the live the first time a year later during enlistment. First joint exercise with Tankers. My APC looked like a toy when this behemoth appeared
You should check out some of the WW2 tanks. They come across as even bigger, as we had not developed the same level of 'miniaturisation' yet for components like the power train.
The lesson described at the end of the video was learned in WW2. Our officers saw the drastic change in pilots highlighted specifically in the battle of midway. By this time in the war we had gotten on par with Japanese airplanes and tactics. We also found out just how valuable the pilots in the seats were when they went up against squads of almost entirely new pilots. We valued our men. They valued glory and honor. In the end those Japanese pilots got plenty of glory and honor as individuals. But they lost the war to much more experienced men. I just hope to God our officers don't ever forget those lessons learned in blood.
that's why the Army's study of 73 Easting where they created a detailed simulation of everyone's actions in the fight and then switched out the equipment to see what would happen if the US tanks were T-72s and the Iraqi tanks were M1s, showing that the battle would have unfolded essentially the same because the key component was crew training, not equipment.
"...effective against a near peer ally ". I'm always impressed with your "Average Infantryman" reviews. You have a excellent presentation style and you make the subject matter interesting...well done Sir, well done indeed. I wasn't a Tanker and I only know what I've read and have seen in videos but the Abrams seems like a really good tank and it has given good service over the years. My personal philosophy has always been that it never hurts to have the best gear but it's always the player and not the glove that makes the difference.
A big gun that can move around the battlefield will always be relevant. Armor may or may not be relevant due to weight, but combined arms, active protection, and used correctly, it will ALWAYs have a purpose. This might evolve to a mobile missile carrier, remote controlled, or even AI. A tank used today correctly certainly has a purpose, especially supporting the infantry.
Eh, they've tested missile tanks before, and they performed worse. The Big gun always wins on "the draw" so to speak, and you need armor to survive being hit by a kintetic penetrator that doesn't care much about ADS
@@dragon12234 futur tanks may survive small arms up to 30mm but that's probably all, situational awareness and mobility will be the thing you want to have
@@zzaronn explain to me how tanks will regress from protecting against missiles and sabo rounds to only being able to stop 30mm frontally and nothing more?
@@sporperino when anti tank weapon will be too powerful. But with NATO caring about tank crew's life it may not happen. But a lightly armored tank can be much faster and with a better awareness they should be able to survive
@@zzaronn What do you mean by an anti tank weapon becomes too powerful? And why wouldn't they slap on some era blocks on it? Plus, tanks like the Merkava and M1A2 have active protection systems that prematurely detonate warheads like missiles if they get too close so why wouldn't they just add that?
I remember watching a video where the UK basically let some troops dictate some test/experimental upgrades to one of their tanks, and the coolest one I saw was a full 360 vision system for the driver (I think) where they were able to wear a VR headset and "see through" the tank all around. I think a fully developed system like this would be the next logical step for the driver or maybe the commander. It would allow much easier control and much less micromanaging for the driver. Maybe mix it with augmented reality to overlay driving paths or the like. It would also let the tank have another set of eyes when in combat.
i want to see VLS tubes on tanks that fire switch blade 300 and switch balde600 drones or maybe a vls stinger or javelin unit you strap on but for real the 360 veiw is a great idea put the crew in a armored bath tub like A-10
That’s a great idea, as was the opinion that I just read about giving tanks a mini-fleet of small drones that can be above the tank and give real time targeting information for a javelin-like system that could even shoot over buildings and the like without even seeing the tank, thermal imaging or not. Shoukd go into business and creat this.
@@SirDeadPuppy Honestly, a system for launching observation drones is probably a better idea than mine. even if they weren't armed, having a small surveillance drone that follows your vehicle around as required would be a huge advantage for urban, or really any, combat, doubly so if the feed could be shared to other vehicles or base. Hiding from ground surveillance is much easier than hiding from air surveillance. I also see that at some point cannon fired munitions will be paced by launched missiles (or drones), and having VLS or a magazine fed launcher would be the logical next step.
@@bracoop2 i think you chould do the same for strikers and even the new hummer something cheap and bolt on the main thing whould be the software to make it all smooth and seamless so they chould network it all of it to every one who needs it the switch blade 300 looks like it fit on a guys back so im sure a tank or anything with wheels chould hold a few of them and yea! lol sign me up if DOD buys into it lol
What Ukarine has shown is that armor without protection and support is basically useless The US military has heavily invested in protection and support to make sure that its armor doesn't get shredded as easily as Russia tanks
Ukraine shows that Russians left behind tons of broken down tanks. 100's of them. You see very few videos of Russian tanks without support getting destroyed. Abrams on the other hand has never faced any challenge of an army with a comparable tech level. Israelis did and they got some "lessons" out of it. One of them was infantry support and the other one is that you need to slap hard the artillery commander before you go to a mission.
@@maxmagnus777 The issue here is that Russia APS as well as made lofty claims about its tanks "During a reported test conducted by the Russian military in 1999 the T-90 was exposed to a variety of RPG, ATGM and APFSDS munitions. When equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA the T-90 could not be penetrated by any of the APFSDS or ATGM used during the trial" Yet Russia armor is getting smashed with ease
Basically any penetrating round into a t series tank is VERY likely to strike ammo. So yeah the abrams crew has a much better chance vs the rolling bomb of the t series
Here's another Fun Fact for you guys, actually a "Holy Shit!" quick story. Stationed in Alaska in Charlie Co. (ABN) 4/9, 172nd LIB between 79' and 82'. I had surgery and was reassigned out of a line platoon to the headquarters platoon in the motor pool. We had Dodge M880's, 3/4 ton trailers, snowmobiles and a couple of M151's with trailers. I was driving the 1SG out to the gunnery range where the mortar platoon was for the week in the winter. I had to stop at a "T" intersection of the trail system and due to the alders (the name of the trees IIRC), I had to inch forward to see down the cross trail. As I inched the nose of the 880 out I was looking left as the 1SG was looking to the right. I see this huge amount of blowing snow hauling ass toward us down the trail. Just as I slammed the 880 into reverse and hit the gas out of the intersection, this tank that I had never seen before flies by the front of the truck. On the turret side was painted "Yukon Jack". They about killed the 1SG and myself. A few years later I see a plastic model kit with the box art of the "Yukon Jack". It had been in Alaska doing cold weather testing of electronics and the hydraulic systems I found out later.
I've never heard of the missile explanation, but the Abrams driving back & forth is just it going from the defilade to enfilade. This essentially is being under coverage from a hill, natural formation or burm where the only thing exposed is the optics. Once the gunner finds an enemy tank it will expose the turret by going into the enfilade and fire before returning quickly back to cover. The gunner and TC will resume scanning for another target.
The uncomfortable fact for any service member is that the DoD has calculated the value of your life. Good news is that its usually high enough to warrant some safety features.
it's why they named it the Abrams, Gen Abrams cared about his troops, he was one of the guys. Jungle fatigues with wrinkles in them and chomping his cigar
Amusingly, so has every automaker out there. Look up the Ford Pinto scandal where Ford decided paying out lawsuits was cheaper than fixing the 'explody' vehicle.
I believe that the newest M1A2 sep 4 has 7 thermal cameras, allowing it 360 degree situational awareness. It also has Trophy APS, and with new 120 MAP HE round they can shoot everything from armored vehicles, structures, and can airburst to kill troops and aircraft. With predictive software, each shot has the accuracy of a guided missile with automatic lead. A possible upgrade might even include a seeker head and guidance fins for even more accuracy. The Abrams is already an apex tank, but upgrades are making it unbelievably capable Future upgrades will have AI assisted detection and targeting software. Coordination with drones, including carrying its own is around the corner.
And where would the 7 thermal cameras be seen from? There is only 1 Sensor on the tank that will detect incoming ATGM's and that comes from the Trophy APS. The tank is far ahead of its time with the current technology and will remain the tank for the foreseeable future.
I've been having a hard time finding sep4 info beyond the most basic descriptions. You happen to have a link that has more info? In particular, I didn't know the details on the thermal imaging. That has to be something the commander has to be stoned about
@@CCM1199 The driver, TC, Crows .50, gunner, two rear cameras, and I think one more, might be wrong. They have varying capabilities, based on size. Obviously the driver and rear cameras have less range but can probably spot a dismount at 300. The gunner, TC, and Crows all have independent optics that have long range capability and can scan different sectors. Many armored vehicles across the world are upgrading to this capability. The tank has the same challenge the ATGM team does- stay undetected, see the enemy first, shoot first, and kill. The tank will use it's superior optics and electronics and ATGM teams will use it's small size and mobility.
I was a tank mechanic and m88a2 crewman during GWOT. tank crews are hard to replace and they maintain and love their vehicles. the best tank crews can keep their vehicle running and fighting for months without outside help besides supply. i had an excellent platoon and would follow my tankers anywhere they went. the best job and friends ive ever had.
Lol...reminds me of my wenches with wrenches... Loved my guys...hell I was their go to designated driver in garrison...did all I could for them...so they could help .e keep my tank fighting... Except for circuit breaker 19...could never figure out why that constantly blew on our m1a1 AIMS...replaced the GPS 3 times and several cables before it worked.
You neglected to mention the addition of the battle proven Israeli Trophy APS system. I think that will even up the game with ATGMs, including top attack munitions. This should give the Abrams a significant life extension.
I think the U.S. has a far more capable combined arms doctrine, unmatched real-time intelligence capability, and logistics capability on the battlefield that would also give the Abrams an advantage. In addition, it wouldn't suffer from the corruption, unprofessional ism, and lack of training that we're seeing in the Russian army.
Good old berm drills. As a long-serving NCO, you hit the nail on the head when you talked about combined arms and training. When the US uses tanks, we rarely send them forward on their own. They are preceded by Scouts (like me) in HMMWV's, Bradley CFV's and sometimes on foot. Our name says it all. We scouted enemy positions, marked strongpoints and reported enemy location, strengths, compositions, etc. to the tankers. This way the tank platoon/troop commander can devise the best strategy of attack. We could also call down artillery and air strikes on the enemy strongpoints, weakening or obliterating them before the tanks even arrived. When the tanks did advance, they were often closely supported by either mounted scouts or infantry who could rapidly dismount to clear urban/wooded areas. They'd also have helicopter gunships hovering right behind and probably fixed wing aircraft stacked up for thousands of feet. In other words, the US doesn't mindlessly drive forward in tanks. We use tanks as they are meant to be used: the armored fist at the point of a full body strike.
I believe the future of tanks will rely heavily on active protection systems, something that counters ATGMs using a computer and multiple sensors to aim locate and shoot an explosive detonating round destroying whatever projectile is coming in the direction of the tank. We’ve seen examples of these systems in testing now it’s just a matter of time before they’re implemented and perfected on military vehicles.
I had a book from the mid 1990's on the 1st Gulf War. In that book it stated the 4 M1A1 Abrams tanks had been knocked out due to anti tank weapons. One of which was a T72 tank that shot the Abrams in the side of the hull, knocking out the Abrams. These claims are corroborated by an old show on what was the Military Channel, now the Americans Heros Channel. I remember them interviewing the tank crew from the knocked out Abrams. It was at night, lots of smoke from oil fires. The tank crew was dealing with Iraqi prisoners when their tank was hit. This one incident changed how tanks were to deal with prisoners in the first Gulf War. Tanks will not deal with prisoners, keep the prisoners moving so away from the Battle. Let another unit, like infantry or MPs deal with the prisoners.
@@joekent5675 official figures from the U.S. government. 23 Abrams were lost in the first gulf War, another 530 Abrams tanks were beyond field repair in Iraq and Afghanistan by 2006.
@@joekent5675 Yes, there was one knock-out by a T-72. It's the differenced between "knocked out" and "destroyed". The tank was repairable after the battle, so it is correct to say "No M1s were destroyed", but not correct to say "No M1s were knocked out by enemy action."
The Abrams tank knocked out at night was knocked out by another Abrams tank which could see it but not identify it due to the range, but flashes indicated it must be firing so it was engaged and knocked out. The flashes turned out to be RPG round exploding harmlessly on the Abrams frontal armor.
For what it is worth, the last generation M60A3/TTS that we had in West Germany 🇩🇪 had a stabilized 105 mm gun. As this video stated, that technology was incorporated into the Abrams tank program.
The Abrams far outclasses the Russian counterpart and the driver and gunnery training along with actual modern Tactics makes the US tanks and crew just far superior and still viable.
@@bprogressive Based on the demonstrated performance of both tanks in warfare, OP is likely right. A tank's effectiveness heavily depends on the way it is employed, and the Russians are disregarding the lessons they learned in WW2. Hence, an M1 Abrams tanks is almost certainly more effective than Russian tanks when deployed based on their armies's doctrine. On paper, a Russian tank is comparable to any NATO tank. In practise, war is NEVER a 1v1, and there are many things that technical specifications cannot tell you about ultimate performace.
@@bprogressive we have seen what modern Russian tanks and crews do and it's not impressive. So I am correct if you have some other evidence present it or be silent
@@solarlux7856 hmm. at last, I found some logical explanations with a lesser degree of " we are best" narrative. Addition with thousands of anti tank weapons of different types and calibres clearly proves Russian tanks are still a very potent weapon and a threat to US war machine.
Lets chill a bit. Yes, "cheap" high tech anti tank missiles are reducing tank effectiveness but much of the Russian disaster is also poor training, driving down the road in column seems to be about the most sophisticated maneuvers they are capable of. Add to that there seems to be no attempt at combined arms either. Training costs lots of money.
I think the Russians have adopted and are using drones to scan the battlefield and spot anti-tank units and coordinates with artillery batteries and howitzer to destroy them. And it has worked so far against NLAW and other anti tank units. The javelin is still effective coz of its range of 2 km which is difficult to be spoted by the drone.
@@soup31314 Nothing wrong driving down the highway when that is justified. The problem is when that is all you know how to do. The US does, the Russians, not so much.
@@munizabegum8679 Evidence that this is working for the Russians? Furthermore, spotting someone in cover is actually very hard, especially from 1000's of feet if they are good at it, unless they use thermal and even then there are counter measures.
You know you're old when it hurts you when someone shows black and white footage while they're talking about 1982. And also seems to think that the Cold war started in 1974. I now know how I used to annoy my retired paper route and lawn mowing customers in the 70s when I talked about world war I being so far in the past.
Since a modern battlefield is essentially always combined arms, it's a little misleading to look at just one weapons system such as the M-1 in isolation. Allied tanks will be supported by integrated infantry, air, anti-air, artillery, surveillance/intel, etc. so it's more a matter of what the Abrams and allied tanks can ADD to the overall mix rather than what they can only do by themselves. As for the entire mix, the M-1 can still be an invaluable addition; as for a "by itself" scenario, I say let the video gamers decide because that is where it's most likely to occur!
@@tomendruweit9386 Tank divisons do not mean only tanks? The Germans in ww2 put plenty of motorized infantry in their tank divisions, I am sure the US is not that far behind.
@@tomendruweit9386 Correct. That is mainly for maintenance and supply reasons and doesn't apply to armored cavalry units (of old). In combat the battalions in the brigades cross attach down to platoon level into combined arms units supported by artillery and AA assets (what little the USA has). 4 tanks companies, 4 Bradley companies, 2 recon platoons, and an attached artillery battalion equals one force of 3 tank companies and 1 Bradley company and 1 recon platoon and one force of 1 tank company and 3 Bradley companies and 1 recon platoon both supported by the artillery battalion. This can also be a 2 tank and 2 Bradley mix and the companies can mix by exchanging platoons.
@@tomendruweit9386 just fyi (old broken knees and back m1 tanker) yes, while we have armored battalions that are just tanks. We do train in combined tactics. And when we do get deployed it is not uncommon for a tank company to have it's platoons split up to supplement infantry and other soft units and basically be integrated I to that company. Our unit in Iraq had two of our 3 platoons taken and we were given 2 mechanized infantry platoons (with their Bradley's and other soft dismounted weapons. Since we already had training on combined arms tactics we blended quite nicely. Crunchiest to scout...tanks to do hard kills...and punish positions with very accurate direct cannon fire. Yes so while in garrison we are a pure armor unit, we trained for several possibilities.
Episode suggestion: I was wondering if you could do something on some rudimentary tactics 101 for us armchair military watchers. How you attack a town (air support? Artillery? Troop positioning?) or how you breach a building? I like all of the videos on the hardware but have little understanding how each part works into the overall strategy.
You would be suprised at how lenghthy and complicated that answer is when you use combined arms doctrine. You have to consider all the weapons and crew you have, where are your logistics, the defender's positions and capability, interactions amongst your available weapon types, interaction amongst Army, Air Force and sometimes Navy assets. And that is just the very top of the list....
Coronet and other atgms are ambush weapons. It would take an awesome active defensive system to neutralize that threat. Right now the best bet is good recon and infantry accompanying your AFV. Having some droness around to scout around probably would also help. like any weapon system ever made the Abrams needs to be used with the proper tactics and with the proper role.
as with the kido butai after the battle of midway, the aircraft carriers were replaced but the experienced crew (mechanics, armorers, ship crew) were irreplaceable.
A big difference in M1 survivability compared to T72 survivability - the M1 has no "turret launcher". If enemy fire sets off the T72's ammo magazine, the crew dies instantly and the turret is launched. If enemy fire sets off the M1 ammo magazine, the blowout panels direct the explosion safely away from the crew. Only the driver might be in serious danger, if the turret is pointed to the rear (thus the ammo magazine is directly above the driver).
By 1977 the decision had been made to eventually move the new tank to a 120 mm gun. After head-to-head testing between the Royal Ordnance L11A5 and the Rheinmetall Rh-120, the latter was chosen. The turret designs of the two prototypes were modified to allow either gun to be fitted. Although the L11/M256 120mm gun was chosen to be the main weapon of the M1 Abrams in 1979, the improved ammunition for the gun still was not fully developed, thus delaying its fielding until 1984.[19]
There will always be a use for the tank and a counter to the tank, this has happened before in the 1973 Yom Kippur war but tanks still proven their use after that ATGM scare. Also the Russians are using Cold War Era tactics and tanks. The tank itself isn’t obsolete it’s the tactics. So new tactics will need to be devolved and test. Check out The Chieftan’s video on it.
Just see the contrast between Fallujah and Chechnya and the answer is right there in front of you. Both were urban cesspools but only one turned out to be a graveyard for tanks.
The Sherman actually had a similar crew survivability focus. It has one of the best crew survival rates of the war, and I think flat out the best among mainstay tanks (i.e. not the specialized ones, but the grunt ones). Crews would get a Sherman shot out from under them, go back, get a new tank, and be back at it.
Sometimes, many times they got cooked. I remember an interveiw with a maitenance guy that had to repair shermans in WW2, he said it was gruesome,they would come in with body parts still inside,They'd fix it,paint over the blood and guts and give it to the next crew, I know I wouldn't to ask what happened to the last guys, seeing welded up holes from 88's.Plus we didn't face many german tanks, we outnumbered them tremendously. Big tank battles were Eastern front.
@@jmy7622 That experience was the case for every tank crew in WWII. The Russians lost tens of thousands of T-34s from 1941 through 1945. I'm quite sure that the poor sods who had to hose out the recovered ones saw some rather gnarly things.
@@mrzoinky5999Same old tired bullshit! The fuel was not the problem. Knocked out Sherman's that were examined found the fuel tanks rarely were ruptured. It was the placement of the ammo racks that caused cook offs. Added armor and different placement solved this.
Its the next generation of abrams thats getting major upgrades to its fire control. Current abrams fire control is top of the line for 20 years ago, but out of date now. yes its likely behind the most modern t-72 variant in fire control. It does have Trophy, which is huge. That and combined arms are the difference. Not fire control. Look at how the abrams performed in yemen with the saudis. Very very poorly since it wasnt used properly. Same with turkish Leopard 2s in syria. Unsupported tanks are extremely vulnerable. Thats been true as long as theres been tanks.
Exactly, which is why the DoD is working on upgrading FCS to modern standards and adding APS to every new tank. But training is a massive part of how tanks are effective. You could have the top of the line Equipment but if your troops are braindead (Russia, Saudi, Iraq back in the 90’s) then they are going to get rocked. Which is why we still maintain some sort of edge against rivals. If a US tank platoon (+ supporting elements) using Abrams finds itself facing a Russian armored unit of similar size (also with its supporting elements), I think we’d still be fine. That being said, we need to upgrade to keep that edge.
One of the biggest things missing from your writings is the major role Apaches and other aircraft will play. Russia has proven they don't know how to integrate the three together.
As an Ex-tanker, yeah, we had to learn a LOT. Even after a 16 week OSUT, we trained literally every day that we weren't forced to do paperwork, for months, before we would even do a course.
@@theobvious1958 That was my biggest issue, yes, but I had also spent the better part of a year thinking about what I was getting myself into and I asked a lot of people a lot of questions. I also had significant memory issues back then. Also, a lot of the people in my training unit were guys who were told by a judge they can join the military or go to jail. If you're looking to go in, mark EVERYTHING as yours, leave nothing unattended, and give no one anything.
Russia has lost something like 500+ tanks to Ukraine. Either because the Russian tanks were destroyed or because the Russian tanks were abandoned even though fully operational. I don't think the US or NATO have much to fear if this is the best Russian tank crews can do.
Russia is losing against a country with 10 times less forces and old rusty left-over soviet weapons. If Russia ever fought against modern NATO forces, Russia's military would be completely destroyed in a single day.
I agree, then again if they were the ones being invaded I don't think the Russians would abandon anything.Their army is less professional for sure, but I don't think they lack patriotism.
Then there is the FEAR OF THE FARM TRACTOR & a front digger shovel. They can dig a hole so fast & then tow the tank into the hole & cover it over like it was never there. Tank can't get out so seed is planted and seasonal crop is raised. Tank crew suffocates.
Dont forget, .50 cal API - T and even 25MM can penetrate the T-72's hull....The armor on the russian tanks doesnt even compare to the Abrams. where is the russians modern ground Moskva...the T-14 Armada...oh wait, still in the motorpool trying to start since its lacking electrical functionality....
I'm more worried about javelins getting reverse engineered when this is all over. With the amount that are floating around it's pretty guaranteed that some will end up in the wrong hands.
The Russians have already captured a LOT of them already. They would be working on defences against them as well as copying the best features of them. It will be interesting to see how long this takes and how long before they are deployed.
@@achillies40 LOl No they haven't. Why do you persist with bullshit and mis-information? Post your proof that Russia has lots of them.. I'll wait!!!!!!
Yeah, but then us regular folk will be able to get knock off javelins on eBay for just a quarter of the original price That means you and I could have four shitty knock off javelins for every one good American made javelin we have now That's something
The first prototype of the M1A2 hit the proving grounds to be tested in late 1991/ early 1992. It wasn't approved until 1992. I know this because I was on it and tested it at the Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona. An experienced crew can shoot, move properly and stay below the line of sight in hilly terrain. You learn with time and good training, how to effectively maneuver and fight a tank. It is an art, and skill.
M60A3 and M1A1 Master Gunner here. You really need to get hold of Hunnicutt's "Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank Vol. 2." It will challenge a lot of your preconceived notions of the M1, starting with it having any relationship with the MBT 70. The only thing the M1 has in common with the MBT 70 was the desire to field a new main battle tank. The M60A2 had more in common with the MBT 70 than did the M1, at least it shared ancestry with the maingun.
My experience with other Nato units was with Germans- whose grunts were drafteea obeying authority, and Canadians, who acted more like serious tactical professionals with a touch of mercenary attitude.I would feel a lot safer with the Canadians on my flank
Canadian Soldiers really are more professional actual soldiers. Yhe majority of them have wanted to be soldiers their whole lives and they go about it in a very British upper class kind of way due to the influence of British military traditions for so long
Wasn’t the key to success for the m1 abrams was it’s ability to accurately hit targets while moving? Main reason why it was so effective against the Russian tanks in the gulf war?
In that war, it wasn't really the fact the tanks could fire on the move, but rather that it had an incredibly big targeting and range advantage over it's adversaries. The Abrams could easily aquire targets serval kilometers away while it's enemies were stuck with optical systems. The fire control meant the first shot was most likely a hit, and because of the way the Russian tanks have a central autoloader, a kill. Target acquisition still remains the best characteristic of the Abrams and one key aspect that must be further improved as fast moving and quick acting infantry get access to the means of eliminating tanks from ranges usually reserved for vehicles.
@@mobiuscoreindustries Especially when the only way to look around for commander was to use binoculars, Abrams didn't get commander panoramic sight until A2 model in '95(which is still better than most T-72, but still bad in comparsion with Leopard2)
The French were able to make a tank that used an auto loading main gun while also storing ammo in a blastdoor-sealed compartment. If we want "next generation" we should just be using that with Trophy active-protection-systems, the best sighting systems we can develop, and avoiding slapping too much steel around the hull to weigh the tank down.
@@matt_pigeonowsky So does M1. The current move to bustle autoloaders (Or semi-autoloaders in the case of Merkava) in Western tanks (See also Type 90, Type 10, K2) seems to be the most advantageous in terms of ammunition separation. I was honestly stunned when Challenger 3 was announced to have a three-man turret crew with a manual loader.
Given the cost of these tiny drones I think a modern tank needs basically a fleet of small, covert drones with tiny laser targeting pods alongside their cameras to provide targeting data back for a set of javelin launch tubes or perhaps an automatic mortar system. Being able to hide entirely and still strike targets on the other side of buildings and have complete situational awareness would be major. Drones can simply fly back and land in a soft collection box or something to be brought back inside for recharging.
Still a great tank. It was over-spec'ed back when first made, so it has always stayed relevant with just small updates (compared to the updates made to similar tanks).
@@trevortrevortsr2 There may have been a development fork of it that broke off to become a helicopter engine, but origin of the Abrams engine is the engine from the Ghia bodied Chrysler Gas Turbine Car of the late 60's.
I don't think you can reach a firm conclusion about the effectiveness of Abrams until more is known about the details of the tank losses on both sides in the current conflict. I have seen quite a few cases where the tank has driven out of its track and then been burned or exploded. This implies it was immobilized by mechanical breakdown, non-fatal ATW hit, or detonated an AT mine before the final fire/explosion. There are also cases where the tank has become stuck in the soft ground and then subsequently destroyed. There are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the loss are unclear. Knowing how many of the tanks were destroyed by their own crews or hit with ATGMs after they were abandoned is a key part of the overall picture. The Abrams is 20T heavier than the T90. Even if the ground pressure is the same, the extra 20T adds to the difficulty of recovery. Mines are a cheap and effective way of immobilizing tanks. They are particularly effective when the ground is sodden and tanks are restricted to roads and obvious lines of advance. On open dry ground, the Abrams will excel but the conditions in Ukraine are not ideal for any tank. The Abrams advantages might be reduced to simply enhanced crew protection.
the US has the resources and machines to recover pretty much anything in their arsenal, while it seems Russia is just throwing it's old obsolete cold war tanks away. something no NATO country would ever consider
@@mayhem3649Damaged equipment behind the lines will be recovered but recovering equipment in the battle zone risks compounding losses. Recovery vehicles are just as, or more, prone to destruction from mines, ATGMs and direct fire. Tank repair teams are highly trained specialists that are no more expendable than the tank crews. If a tank must be abandoned the tactical situation will determine whether it must be destroyed to prevent it from being used by the enemy. Every trained crew has a procedure for destroying equipment that must be abandoned. A "big war" consumes vast amounts of equipment on both sides regardless of who is "winning", and who is "losing"
Russia did continue to upgrade the armor on their tanks even when the Abrams had the 105mm. The T-72a (which had improved armor over previous models) entered service about the same time as the Abrams. Further, crew survivability is still important to Russia. They didn't design their vehicles at the detriment to the crew. They just had a different approach to it. By making tanks smaller, Russia could decrease the target profit, and armor the tank more for the same weight compared to bigger tanks. That was seen as a better approach than other solutions.
The ammo storage issue from the Soviets and Russians continue to be a problem. They could have selected an auto loader that did not have that issue and have protected ammo like the West does, but they chose not to.
@@ricardoospina5970 the autoloaders used in western tanks like Leclerc have the problem of size. It gives the tank a much larger profile due to it being in the turret. Putting it in the hull allows the turret to be smaller. Also, the autoloaders do have spall protection armor around them. They are not blowout panels, but they do offer some protection.
at that time the doctrine was also still kinda relevant too. Fire control systems werent as advanced as today and having a smaller target to shoot at would make accurate shots actually a lot harder. nowadays its not relevant anymore as FCS can hit a tank sized target at more than 2-3km away. However more modern MBTs like the Type10, Leclerc and K2 have switched to (Cassette style) Autoloaders for decreased weight and ease of future upgrades to larger guns which human loaders couldnt handle the shells of.
@@Yung_pindakaas a smaller vehicle still had advantages. It will make the vehicle lighter, which helps mobility and armor protection. Also, the vehicle can use terrain features as cover better. A shorter tank is easier to hide.
@@ethandertz1160 There are major drawbacks to their designed size. Even modern examples aren't "regular people" intended. The shortest folks in the army get put into the tanks because the Russian designed tanks are too small for regular people. A tight space wears more on a crew and introduces fatigue earlier. Also, they didn't really upgrade the armor within the hull. There wasn't really room for that. The Soviets/Russians instead applied armor to the OUTSIDE of the hull in the form of add-on steel plates and later, ERA panels. The smaller size also means they're limited on the size of power pack. This means that the smaller, lighter Russian tank also has a smaller, weaker engine. You'll see on the Abrams and Leopards that while they're heavier, their larger and much more powerful engines means that they still have a better HP:ton than almost any Russian tank. The other major drawback of the Soviet/Russian design is that their very short stature for their tank works against them mechanically. The very short space between turret and hull means that Soviet/Russian tanks have absolutely terrible gun depression. This means that prepared fighting positions for their tanks are much longer and shallower because the gun can't aim down very low at all. This means that the shooting/peaking strategy that Western tanks employ in their dugout defensive positions are very difficult to nearly impossible for Soviet/Russian tanks. To top this off, Soviet/Russian tanks also have very small gearboxes. This has resulted in the hilarious side effect of have very few reverse gears on a Russian tank. This means that even if they dig a proper defensive firing pit for their tank, the tank backs up extremely slowly which with the shallow angle of the pit means that the tank is left vulnerable for much longer. This is why the Iraqis just parked their tanks at the top of the fighting position and kept the tank in a hull-down position. It'd take forever to backup and the requirement for a pretty much flat top means that the tanks were vulnerable for much longer moving forward/backwards as was tradition for many Western tankers exploiting elevated terrain.
One thing I think you didn't cover is maintenance processes. The M1 might break down more. It almost definitely does, but the US maintains their equipment to a much higher standard, and repairs it much more efficiently. If Russia had M1s, it's likely they would never actually get to the fight. They would be broken down, and out of fuel, in a random field somewhere. Long before Ukraine got a chance to shoot at them.
Former member of 1st tanks division (H&S motor pool) the tanks that got sent back mostly due to prolonged exposure to dust, much like the helicopters they weren't designed with sand fatigue in mind and it would jack up the engine. 1st tier repairs (replacing tracks and other minor repairs) done by the crew, 2nd tier (think replacing parts on the engine) done by the mechanics section, 3rd tier (engine swaps and other repairs that expose classified items) done by contractors from the manufacturer. It was cheaper and more time efficient to ship back tier 3 repairs to the states and replace with existing units on ship then to ship the parts and expensive contractors to a war zone
I agree the optics give the Abrams substantially more protection against modern infantry anti-tank weapons than their Russian equivalents by substantially increasing the crew awareness of their surroundings. However this can only reduce the chances it will get taken out by an infantry anti-tank weapon. Latest Abrams M1A2 Sep V3 also has trophy active protection system which I am surprised you did not mention. This intercepts missiles in flight so they don't hit the tank. Israel who makes it has already had a situation where a tank was saved by trophy aps when it intercepted a Kornet atgm like the one you said Russia uses in the video. So Russian infantry could not even take out a M1A2 Abrams Sep V3 with one shot with their anti tank weapons as it would take multiple shots to deplete trophy. As Russian infantry would not get the chance to launch more than one shot as Abrams M1A2 Sep V3 would either blow them up after they fired at it or the tanks escort would shoot at them. So Russian infantry can't take out Sep V3 although there is only a limited amount of this Abrams variant in service. Active protection systems like trophy are the future and they will protect tanks from the modern anti-tank weapons that can easily take out most tanks today. The next US tank OMT or optionally manned tank will have aps as standard and be like T-14 Armata except it will actually be used and produced in numbers.
optics dont give protection. They give better situational awareness. The T-14 Armada itself is garbage and has been since the rumored introduction of the tank. It had and still has electrical issues within the vehicle. running the tank as a 2 man crew is also a bad thing. a full four man crew is the way to go.
@@CCM1199 Fica quieto doido slc, mais ou menos não importa a doutrina russa e lançar múltiplas colunas blindadas, a americana e diferente, Além do mais quem falou que o T-14 e um lixo? Não viu combate ainda então não podemos ter afirmações bostas que nem essas, Além do mais o EUA nem começou a produzir essa versão o suficiente sendo a maioria M1A2B ou C.
Tank survivability depends on robust combined arms. Optics and active protection systems only help, without mutual support and security from Infantry, there is only so much you can do. The RU problems are with terrible execution of Combined Arms, and operating in a country they've made completely toxic to themselves--not with any glaring problem with the T-series tanks. They've poisoned their own well with the Ukrainian population.
You dont need infantry to secure the tank. The TC and loader can do that that all by themselves. There is a reason they split the sectors of fire on top of the turret. Loaders sector of fire is back left rear side of tank to front right side of tank as the TC's is opposite (right rear to front left). The crew serve weapons on top of the tank act as both a area suppression with M240 and precision weapon with CROWs .50 Cal. If it had the flext mount for the .50 cal it also becomes an area suppression weapon. both weapons also act as a deterrent to Air threats (i.e. helicopters and fixed wing flying at or close to the tank). The tank and its crew never relied on the infantry for anything and the same goes for the scouts.
@@cases2939 You dont need infantry to secure the tank. The TC and loader can do that that all by themselves. There is a reason they split the sectors of fire on top of the turret. Loaders sector of fire is back left rear side of tank to front right side of tank as the TC's is opposite (right rear to front left). The crew serve weapons on top of the tank act as both a area suppression with M240 and precision weapon with CROWs .50 Cal. If it had the flext mount for the .50 cal it also becomes an area suppression weapon. both weapons also act as a deterrent to Air threats (i.e. helicopters and fixed wing flying at or close to the tank). The tank and its crew never relied on the infantry for anything and the same goes for the scouts.
I was a gunner on the platoon leaders tank. It’s all about target acquisition and not presenting a silhouette. Sights are mounted on top of the turret so the tank can be hidden yet the gunner can still identify and lock onto a target. Move forward to clear the barrel fire and return. With thermals troops and vehicles can be identified.
J676 As a member of the anti-tank squadron, I agree. 💯
Osama Bin Laden, I thought you died 11 years ago?! What gives?!
What a BS video - not one word on Trophy APS??
Kornets will not hit Abrams since Trophy will block them.
Concur
So , what is your opinion on the current and future situation , as a gunner or as an individual ? Anyone can answer ...
Former Tank Platoon Leader here. Your last line about the crew being less expendable than the vehicle hit the nail on the head. A fully trained tank crew is very hard to replace on short notice, and to train a full crew cost more than the tank. Russia's biggest problem in the Ukraine isn't the lack of crews, but a lack of crews that know what they're doing. Conscripts with less than a year of training, and vehicles not being maintained.
"to train a full crew costs more than the tank" you have a source for that?
If its anything like the British army, the tanks commanders course is one of the hardest courses around. Thats just tonpass let alone be any good.
@@markpozsar5785 I'll be going a little in depth here because I have no idea of your understanding of the US Army's Armor program. There is no published source that I was able to find. I had to take the 22 weeks each individual member goes through when first joining the military, then take that into account for each crew member. Each crew member is at a different level in their term of service with usually the loader being the FNG "Fu**ing New Guy", then the driver who typically already has 2 years in service and is no longer the FNG, then the gunner who usually has 3 to 4 years in service and has served his time in the other 2 positions, up to the TC (Tank Commander), who is required to be at a minimum of a E-5 SGT, but according to the TOE (table of organization) is allocated to be an E-6 SSG. To sum it up, a trained crew is an ever ongoing thing with the senior man usually a SSG already having 5 to 6 years in service. Meaning you have to take his pay for 5 to 6 years add that to the next guy with 4 to 5 years and so on down the line. Starting from the top down with that E-6 with his pay and allowanced and the training he's gone through to attain his position, that may give you an idea of the complexity of your question. Hope you understand. I didn't just pull it out of my ass, but knew from experience that it's true.
Also Russian units are all on their own, sometimes literally. Combined forces is just not a concept for them.
@@markpozsar5785 It's not likely to be true. In the late 1970s an XM1 crew had an annual training cost of about $20,000. The modern M1A1 is supposed to be around $6 million a unit. Even if training costs have since gone up to $100,000 a year, you'd still be training your crew for 60 years before you met the base cost of the tank.
You could also say that a highly skilled crew is more important that the quality of the tank, but that isn't true either, In Desert Storm, relatively inexperienced US rank crews went up against hardened Iraqi veterans and tore them to pieces. It wasn't even close. The difference came in technology, effective combined arms, high quality intelligence gathering, responsive tactics and leadership. Getting into the enemy's OODA loop and staying there was a key factor.
In 95 when I was stationed at fort hood, my infantry platoon was attached to a tank company. We did a force on force where one tank would defend against the whole company.
After 3 hours the tank was finally killed after he had killed all four Bradley’s and 10 other tanks.
In 99 when I was a bradley gunner in Germany I used the same tactics and our one bradley fought off and killed 12 out of 13 other Bradley’s.
We used the berm drill tactic, you come up till just the optic is over a reserve slope, then you pull up just far enough so the gun clears the iv line and engage. You kill one or two vehicles then back down till your optic is able to see then move at least 100 meters to left or right, and repeat.. never come up twice in same spot, and never have the driver slam the gas (black smoke from exhaust), creep up slowly.
How doe that work, do you guys use like paint shells or something to designate hits or what?
@@Baconator5642 MILES gear, it is like a big set of layer tags
kind of the unique thing you only can do with a tank. no other weapon system lets you drive a large piece of artillery up to the enemy, fire, and duck back under cover before they know what hit them, and move as fast
It's called a hull down position.
@@thomassenbart it would be a hull Defilade on a reverse slope.
Also to mention, having a tank and an military that priorities crew safety creates high morale and soldiers feel confident that makes them perform better
I'm not a tank crew and I can imagine myself not being scared 24/7 of an auto turret ejection system under my legs.
Good point. Looking at the level of fuckery against the Russian grunts by the Kremlin, their 'green wienie' has reached sizes that are theoretically impossible.
Works well until you hear about your buddies who got cooked into the same unpenetrable fortress that's been designed just for your safety... All tanks are vulnerable to antitank systems. They are all the same in that regards, the only difference is made by the fire control system.
And just think how the bad guys feel that are facing you in a T-72 "pop top."" Israeli designs have also stressed this factor, the Merkava Mark IV being the prime example.
Fear is your friend on a battlefield. If you are fearless, than you could make stupid moves and loose.
Fun fact - Back in 1980 a friend of the family worked at the Warren Tank Plant (Detroit Tank Arsenal) where the first Chrysler Abrams XM-1s were produced (Suck it, Lima). He invited us to their "open house" where 14yr old me got to see a XM-1 do ungoverned 70mph laps around their test track. Pretty cool how the ground shook when it went by. I got bounced around in the back of a M113 too. That was a very fun day.
isnt it more of a fun story? not that I doubt you.
If you were a kid that liked armor, then that day was BIG FUN!!
I'm almost jealous. I'd love to get on to tank or a jet.
I was in the Army from 1977 until 1985, was a Tanker that went from M-60 A1 to M1 (105mm version). We could tell when the Mechanics messed with the Gov, it would be the M1 that had thrown the Track or broken Torsion Bars. The TRACK is the limiting factor, not the weight!
Too bad the production tanks were all welded and machined in scenic Lima, Ohio, leaving simple painting and assembly in Warren.
As a former infantryman you may be familiar with the “I’m up, he sees me, I’m down” IMT?
That’s kind of the concept of the tanks pulling forward to shoot then backing up.
Minimizing the exposure time that you are able to be fired on.
Not popping up in the same place every time is beneficial if possible.
3-5 second rush across 1.2 km of terrain. Life of a pre - GWOT soldier. my lungs still hurt. Lol
@@baghdaddymike6669 Bruh how do you run at 200 m/s
Wouldnt popping back out in a different spot screw with your firing solution. I understand the reasoning behind moving.
@@anonymoususer3561 lol look up individual movement tactics
I was involved with the M-1 tank program after the Army had chosen the Chrysler version as the winner of the runoff. The M-1 still had some changes to be made before going into full release for production and I was part of that evaluation. I remember CBS's "60 Minutes" doing a hit piece on the M-1 at the same time as we were running it hard at Irwin and it really ticked off everyone involved, Military and Civilian. It made my heart proud to see the reports of the M-1's performance in battle in the first gulf war. We all knew the M-1 was going to be a great platform and it was nice to have it proven to the world.
I had two friends in the 3rd Cavalry Regt. who worked (separately, as one was a platoon sergeant and the other a tank commander and they were in different troops) on the testing of the XM1 and also got early production M1s. They loved it. It was fast, well armed and armored, and fairly comfortable for the crew. Even then the fire control was impressive. As one told me, you had to try to miss with the gun. He described easily blowing phone pole targets in half at a mile range while driving at over 40 miles per hour over rough desert terrain.
I remember the Chrysler prototype and the GM one, the Chrysler won out. Yea CBS doing a hit piece on a new US weapons platform was par for the course with MSM back then. They preferred not to have a strong military after Vietnam, but they were only playing into the hands of the Soviets.
I was a kid in the 80’s (or was it the 80’s) and remember one of the networks making a series called “the fleecing of America” and one of the episodes involved talking about how horrible the B1 bomber was.
One of my neighbors worked on the early Abrams. Apparently its turbine engines had sand ingestion problems and caused a breakdown. He has a picture of one of his crew doing a big old double peace sign to the sky from the top hatch of the recovery vehicle. It was towing a broken down Abrams 😅
The Abrams M1 has engine problems, as well as the Russian T-90. and now the Abrams have given Poland.the Russian T-14 has already surpassed everyone, a new concept, new ideas.some may say that the leopard 2A7V is better, but this is not true, because it is necessary to compare..I can't say which of the schools is better western or eastern, both are good.in Ukraine, Russian losses are explained by improper operation, and this does not mean that Russian equipment is bad.
I once got a box of Abrams turbine blades from the hot section of it's engine and was tasked with inspecting them. I looked at them with digital radiography and found they were all full of sand. Turbine blades typically made on inconel often have tiny machined or cast holes in them to pump cooler air through them so that the engine can run at higher temperature. The sand was basically microscopic and had gotten heated enough the melt slightly into tiny glass drops that stuck to the walls inside the blades air passages and built up to the point that they clogged and the blades overheated and started to melt likely causing the engine to stop itself from over temperature warnings. Was one of the cooler things I ever looked at.
Sounds about as expected for a tank operating for an extended period in the desert, i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan
Sounds like it wasn’t all that cool. Budum-tsss
Hmm I wonder how much this factored into the decision to move away from the turbines for the next iteration. Cool info.
What was the coolest thing you've ever seen?
@@blakebrown534 Telsa tanks graphene battery electrics.
As an M60A3 (19e) and M1A1 (19k) Tanker…
I loved my M60’s, they fit like well worn and well maintained steel toed boots. Easy to learn and easy to maintain with known quirks that were easy to leverage.
I loved my M1A1’s, they fit more like well tailored powered battle armor. Transitioning from the M60A3 to the M1A1 in 1986-87, the Abrams felt like the love child of a Cadillac and a Star Fighter.
If The Warsaw Pact had come for us in 1985 (West Germany) we would have been hard pressed. If they had come in 1987… we’d have Smoked them like a Sunday Ham.
This tanker says, "Amen Brother"!
I worked on the USAF's M1 equivalent, the F-15. I've been a tank follower from the age of 9 though, and as an airman in 1986 deploying to just west of the Fulda Gap for a Reforger, I felt a lot better with the new M1's and F-15's there. It's incredibly interesting to see the same thought processes going on for both platforms, crew survivability being central to both. Lots of people in the world don't realize that crews make up the armed forces, not equipment, and most of us weren't all that interested in dying for our country, but instead making the enemy die for his.
If you were a 19E it’s time to schedule a Colonoscopy. Also, report to the Motor Pool your A3 just broke a #1 torsion bar just sitting there.
@@markmclaughlin2690 I Was.. It is... and I had a hand in replacing a Tortion Bar or two on M60-A3's...
Guess it's time to call the Butt Doctor... my favorite... NOT!
@@belliott538 I was a 19E, Germany 1985 - 1987. I agree wholly with your assessment of the situation at that time. I do think that even with the M60, we had the upper hand.
Survivability-wise, the Abrams still has it's "explody" ammo separated from the squishy crew. --Still a top notch design feature after all these years.
But where does it keep its explody crew and squishy ammo?? :P
@@seanheath4492 In separate sealed compartments. The entire ammo load in the bustle can detonate and the crew remains unaffected in the M1. A design feature that can't be retrofitted.
ua-cam.com/video/Ay7bOG2nD6k/v-deo.html (Video of detonation of ammo blowout panels/bustle rack with live ammunition in test)
i think the t72 ammo is seporated, but lack lack of blowout panels, combined with the crazy powerful top down attack missles just cut through everything to the ammo storage....
@@specialingu Only the driver is separated from the ammo and then only if the hatch between the gunner and driver is buttoned. If the tank is buttoned, the turret flies off and if the commander's hatch is open, the commander goes ballistic while flames jet from the hatch.
Tanks and Anti-tank weapons have been leapfrogging each other for as long as either has existed. During WW2 more tanks were destroyed by AT guns than anything else. The Matilda II tank during the early war period was extremely well armoured and was invulnerable to enemy fire until the Germans decided to shoot one with an Anti Aircraft gun and found that really worked. After the war, NATO and the Warsaw pact nations rapidly developed weapons using HEAT ammunition. This made steel armour obsolete and many nations started to develop fast, highly manoeuvrable tanks that had very limited armour. A good example of this was the Leopard 1 tank. These tanks used speed to counter enemy Anti-tank weapons and they worked until composite armour and wire-guided missiles were invented. So then came the age of ERA and Applique armour that could counter direct hits from guided missiles, so missiles developed tandem warheads and this was countered by spaced armour. Eventually, you get what you see now, Missiles using multiple attack methods for defeating a tank, for example, Top-down attack modes and tanks starting to implement active protection systems to prevent these missiles from contacting the vehicle.
It's a constant race that will see neither Tanks nor AT weapons obsolete in direct, open conflict until the very definition of Open conflict has changed to a point beyond recognition. Maybe space battles will change things.
Nah. I'm pretty sure we'll have space tanks.
Armor now needs “Active Point Defense”. AKA A minigun that can independently engage drones, missiles’ or bombs.
@knuckler as an 19E/K way back in the "cold war" as an instructor we demonstrated the "sager" dance to the students, which when preformed properly didn't become a "breaking track" class
Also since WWII almost every tank has had an active protection system equipped. It's the little tubes around the tank that look like soda can and the button inside the turret that is labeled smoke. If an enemy can't get a visual on you they can't hit you and most smoke today is made with either red or white phosphorus which helps mask thermal signatures as well.
The Germans were Brilliant the allied armies feared the 88 millimeter gun
I was an Abrams crewman. Love every minute of it. As incredible a tank as the M-1 series is, it's true that training, discipline, and morale are the decisive factors. Russian tankers in Ukraine are paying the price for poor training, discipline, and morale, not to mention being abysmally unprepared aggressors. Or the explodey autoloader carousel on the T-72's, T-80's, and T-90's.
AKA Explooder
We saw your training in Iraq war.... lmao
@@MuffinMan101 The Abrams performed extremely well in Iraq?
@@MuffinMan101 18 lost
@@cockatoo010 exploader
Indeed, the US focuses on soldier survivability because training is long and expensive. But also because having experienced crews which live to fight another day means you don't end up with recruits who have no idea what they are doing with most of your tanks as the conflict drags on.
Not only that but you can take a portion of these experienced troops and send them back to be instructors, and cadre for new units that are being stood up. So, the rookies have been trained by people who know what works and what doesn't, and 'green' units are led by a cadre of experienced troops.
They learned the lesson from Israel
@@Fireclaws10 I don't know about Israel, WW2 and Vietnam also taught a lot to America about why experienced soldiers are important. They really struggled with a lack of skilled soldiers and relied on conscription, which didn't work out for them. After Vietnam, the Army underwent big reforms in basically all aspects like training, equipment and tactics.
that's why they were the leaders in having the ammo cook off up and out of the tank, probably the biggest advance in keeping armor crews alive since the tank was made.
@@keithbrain1169 It's more the other way around. They understood crew survivability was important after blowing themselves up in their tanks in Vietnam. Then they got the idea that quality should come before price in terms of priority. And that's how you get an Abrams. I wish Cappy would have covered this subject, it's part of what made the Abrams so revolutionary.
Well presented. I’m an old M1A1 tank commander in the US Army. Before 911 we spent all our time training in combined arms to fight the Russian hoard. Most of the time in MOPP 2 or MOPP 4. After 911 in Iraq we drove around until something blew up or we got called to end an insurgent attack.
Modern M1A2 with well trained crews, active protection systems and a clear well executed combined arm doctrine can still decide a battle.
great to hear from a tank commander , I have a ton of respect for Abrams operators - its takes a well trained crew to keep those things keeping us safe
@@Taskandpurpose Old school gunnery
ua-cam.com/video/qQcWnOFbjQc/v-deo.html
Michael Wittmann , the German Tank Ace in WW2 (cough, cough) said that while he got all the glory, he could only do what he did because he and his crew basically worked on a near telepathic level.
It's a fact that like minded people who spend a lot of time together and experience the same situations together "synch up." I've experienced this myself. While it's true that an incredible amount of information can be communicated in this state, I think the greater part of it is that you're already thinking the same things and you know exactly how the other person/people that you're synched up with will react considering each other's slightly different vantage points.
Not only that but he could suck out the power of other tank crews, and be the only tank in the unit hitting
@@jessep926 I mean “The German propaganda machine swiftly credited Wittmann, by then a household name in Germany, with all the British tanks destroyed at Villers-Bocage.”
@@2adamast Butt hurt 😂 ?
Veterancy is very important when it comes to tankers. If there is anything we can learn from WW2 or any conflict with heavy use of armor we can see that an experienced crew is an actual force multiplier. There are plenty of cases where a veteran crew makes the difference in combat. Especially when it comes to things like tanks and planes. Can't forget to mention how important stuff like this is with fighter pilots aswell.
Indeed. The Japanese lost their best pilots and went downhill.
That can be said basically for everything. Whether it's mechanized or air or water or boots on the ground. Experience is king.
Yes. Experience is a must. There is a story from the end of WW2 about an Elephant commander who panicked under fire and told his driver to turn the tank around so that they could retreat. The frontal armour could stop all the incoming rounds, but the commanders decision exposed the weaker side armour to the Allies...
@@WOLVESOFWARGAMING Whilst this is true. A squad on the ground that is well trained, coordinated and effective could decide the outcome of a firefight and have a real impact. However, when it comes to armor or aircraft, systems that have potential to have a way bigger importance and effect on the battlefield, at least in theory. The chance for training and experience to be even more of a linchpin factor is very high. At the same time, the lack of said experience and training has the potential to be more disastrous to the outcome of whatever objective is at hand. In other words, a mistake is usually more expensive. An example would be a situation where a helicopter is bringing troops in to an area of operations and upon dropping off the men onboard one of the soldiers gets shot. This sucks of course but the mission might not be at risk. However, if the pilot of this helicopter makes a mistake where he maybe takes too long to maneuver in to the correct position for the troops to disembark. He could be giving the enemy time to maybe hit the aircraft with RPGs or the like. This could potentially lead to everyone on the helicopter being killed and thus put the entire mission at risk. This is just one scenario that could occur of course but I think you understand what I'm getting at.
@@kruger7796 but I never argued that all I said is experience is king no matter who it pertained to.
I think the most overlooked part about the Abrams in combat is that an Abrams almost never goes into combat alone. Joint operations has become fundamental to US military success and almost without exception the Abrams will not fight without some combination of infantry, CAS, and artillery supporting it. Russia's largest mistake in Ukraine so far has been a massive inability to conduct joint operations in any sort of meaningful way. Many things lead to this but the results speak for themselves. From the bad training to the dry rotted support vehicles, from the discontinued dual band AlibExpress radios some crews are using to the lackluster air support, There's a whole grocery list's worth of incredibly stupid and avoidable mistakes that have essentially crippled Russia's ability to conduct joint operations & thus left their armor vulnerable to almost constant attack. TL;DR: Nobody fights alone & Russia tried to Thunder Run without bringing the thunder.
In WWII, when Germany invaded the USSR, Soviet tank designs were so vastly superior their best kit was borderline invulnerable - German infantry derisively nicknamed their standard (37mm) ATG 'the doorknocker' because it was literally useless (bonk?). Despite this the Red Army was essentially destroyed in its entirety in both '41 and '42 - German success on all fronts basically rested on Stukas and towed flak (88mm) providing the muscle for their actually shitty tanks.
The Panzer divisions were strong because they embodied the combined-arms concept in organization and control, and it took the Allies a minute (roughly two years) to deal with it by basically emulating it.
I don't think this point about American combined arms success versus Russian failures in Ukraine has been overlooked, but point taken and well spoken except unlike you, Im not sure much of that grocery list of mistakes were avoidable. Their military doctrine is fundamentally flawed all the way down to the platoon level. The only thing they seem to know how to do well is murder civilians.
@@onylra6265 That's partially true. I mean it is true what you wrote, but German asset was some terrible german word I can't find which meant that any commander had to 1. be able to take over and manage unit 'notch' higher 2. understand mission for his unit 3. DELEGATE as much as possible notch lower.
EXCUSE ME NO SOLDIER HAS EVER BEEN KILLED BY ENEMY FIRE IN AN ABRAMS TANK ... 1/1 CAV IRON SOLDIER SIR 19 KILO
@@onylra6265 soviet tanks where not vastly superior to german tanks. In '41, most of the soviet armor was srill using BTs, which where quite handidly bested by German Panzer IIIs and IVs. The only deficiencthe germans had was not fielding a 50mm anti tank gun earlier and designing a short 75mm instead of a long 75mm. Soviet armor problems where handidly solved by both of these changes, although by then ther germans had different issues to solve.
I was an M1 A1, A2 Turret, and Hull mechanic and tracked recovery specialist. It will do just fine so long as the crews stay well trained and continue to practice and stay qualified.
So the takeaway is basically:
It's not the tank that's obsolete, it's the scope and application of combined arms warfare that has changed.
Exactly, tanks are like infantry, they should evolve constantly to stay relevant
Saddam don't have javelins 🤣...
The Russians don’t either lmao
Precisely. It's now easier to deny an area to traditional tank tactics, so now tanks run with different tactics/combined forces to counter
@@angelmario7085 But he had access to russian anti tank missiles like the one that opened up the video..
I was on the XM1 project in the 70's. This was the Abrams at the start. They did ergonomics testing with armor crewman on mockups. When we saw the video footage of the main gun shooting at high speeds, we about crapped. When Desert Storm came into play, we cheered when we saw the devastation they caused in desert warfare that we all were anxious about under the old M60A1.
Crew survivability may be a “cold” calculation, but there’re a number of important issues that address. We have had, since 1971 or 72 an all-volunteer force. Bringing back the Draft now would require a political situation we’ve not seen since Pearl Harbor - so, to maintain the willingness for fight and general popularity of the military as a career choice, survivability in combat MUST be and remain an emphasis.
This is correct. Moreover, the US learned the hard way that conscripts don't make good soldiers in a foreign war. In fact, I'd argue that conscription is really only useful if you need large numbers of meat shields to hold off an invader until the real professionals can arrive to do the heavy lifting.
@@Schwarzvogel1 Well, if you can convince the large majority of your population of the necessity of a given war, I think conscripts CAN fight well, particularly given needed training and support. But certainly, the way Putin is trying to use them in Ukraine is a recipe for massive casualties, or mutinies.
Not only is training and maintaining a certified crew expensive (because for every 4 meatballs taking up arms, there's more and more support personnel) but SO IS PAYING SGLI COMPENSATION (Soldiers Group Life Insurance) and VA bennies. Full spectrum casualty economics.
It was always said its cheaper to double the cost of a guy who lives than pay out for the guy who dies.
If your country is attacked conscripts can fight and fight well. Israel is proof that conscripts will willingly push themselves to be the best they can be due to the security situation Israel faces.
By the same token conscripts who are used to invade a foreign country usually lack the motivation to fight.
That is important only if you have aggressive wars somewhere far, far away. Which is what US only do.
Look, no matter what you replace the tank with, you will still end up with some form of tank until we pass gunpowder weapons.
UGVs will just lead to more armoured UGVs.
UAVs will be countered with heavier active protections.
And you will always need something to breakthrough a defensive formation unless you want to end up in trench warfare.
Tank isnt obsolete. It needs to update like everything else.
Exactly 💯💯💯. Tank is forever staying
People often forget that War is a Team effort, Tanks are not indestructible, Drones and anti Tank weapons really work great against Tanks, that dosent mean that there is Anything wrong with Tanks it just means that you need something to counter that.
It don't really need a update, becuase if they are deployed and used correctly, UCAV's and Ambush teams won't be a problem.
Seriously the tank isn't obsolete just most nations Doctrines.
The US from what I can tell has no issue with these things, because their Army seems to have a firm understanding of maneuver warfare, unlike the Russian Federation, who seem to be deploying tanks without the most basic of maneuver fundamentals, such as infantry-scout screens for the tanks.
I was in Iraq for Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Delta Company 2/66 armor. During a night battle, the word that "there are no friendlies to your front" was passed down. Unfortunately, bravo company 3/66 armor was advancing on the left flank of delta company 2/66, but in the confusion of night warfare (GPS was still very rudimentary and not integrated yet and there was no such thing as IFF for ground vehicles) started to get off course and crossed in front of delta by accident. Before this mistake had been realized, gunners in delta had shot and killed 2 tanks belonging to bravo 3/66 including the company commander's tank (B-66). Captain Ingram called cease fire as soon as it was apparent the tanks he was shooting at were not enemies, but in the TIS (thermal image sight) a tank at 3,000m looks a lot like any other tank. The ground we crossed was almost totally flat with zero vegetation so engagement range was further than usual. Some days later I was also in the recovery team that recovered the two destroyed B 3/66 tanks. On B-66 I counted a total of 17 penetrator strikes, of which only one actually penetrated. These are all 120mm depleted uranium APFSDS penetrators we're talking about, with 17 hits to the turret and hull but only one penetration. That one hit the turret ring on the starboard side of the tank, passing through the body of the gunner on it's way through the turret, but I couldn't find any exit hole. The other 3 crew members of B-66 made it out of the tank mostly unharmed before the ammunition ready rack exploded, blowing the blast panels off the top of the turret and scattering fully intact DU penetrators all around the tank. Of the other bravo tank that was hit, all 4 crew members survived. So that is how survivable the M1 tank is, how well the crews are trained (survivability, gunnery, etc) and how tough the armor on the M1A1 HA that we ere driving was. Cappy says the newer Russian ATGMs would kill it, but I'm not so sure. My sources in the armor community have also told me that recently a lot of M1 tanks have been fitted with the Trophy APS, which combined with armor and reactive armor, would probably make the SEPv3 nearly invulnerable to anything that's not a top-down attack.
Try shooting a T72 17 times and see how many of those Russians are walking away from it.
They (Russian tanker) essentially become satellite.
Yeah , after first hit or 2 most T-72 go Frying pan 🤣 First time I saw that live I legit kissed my tank
Outstanding discussion of the M1 Abrams in combat and the incredible high level of survivability. I strongly believe that with the US's Combined OPS and some support with our Allies, ALL russian armor would be destroyed and their retreat would lead to the capitulation of Putin's desire of an Empire.
Think about it, seventeen hits at a range of almost 2 miles.
@@lorrinbarth1969 Yeah, and a peneteration too. The APFSDS effectivness decreases with longer distances, if they were closer it could end much worse.
Former M1 TC here, One of the biggest differences between the M1 family and the T-whatevers is that the M1's ammo is stored separately behind a two inch thick door in a compartment with pressure relieving blow off panels to vent the explosion and cook offs to the outside, away from the crew compartment. So long as the loader stays away from the knee switch for the armored doors, the crew will likely survive, albeit deafened!
The T-64 -72 -80 and -90 have ammo carousels exposed in the crew compartment!
"If we get hit we become satellite"
Essentially every Russian tanker
Many crews would send a round down range while the ammo door was still closing without realizing it. A good loader knows the 2 second delay after you Take your knee off knee switch so as soon as the door is opened you take your knee off the switch before grabbing the next round, so by the time you hump that round in the door is closed. If you didn't do that and hold knee on switch the whole time while taking the round out the door will close around 2 seconds after round is loaded.
I seen a tank burn up an blow off panels fly at Brookhaven range back in 2002 from loader switching rounds in between engagements and didn't realize he as putting a round back in the ready rack that was cooking off and it blew up in his hands and set the ready rack off. I saw it all happen on the first BP pulling gate guard. Whe that happened the driver passed out from th halon because he couldn't get his hatch opened fast enough because it was nighttime engagements and the old night sight was in with the wing nuts. The tank drove for 20 minutes at idle speed across all the rough terrain and nobody could stop it. The panic and screaming was unbelievable. The flames white above 50 ft trees man. The tank finally stopped ar end of range when it hit a big tree. The drivers name was Robert white from Maryland and he actually didn't burn just died from smoke inhalation and the loader Christopher Murodas from little Rock Arkansas burned alive. I just hung out with Chris at lake Blora the weekend before and was and was water skiing with him. I was Aco 3/67 pulling support and they where Cco 3/67. The tc and gunner actually made it out alive with minor burns but SSG Steele who was the tc was relieved and sent to another unit while the gunner Nolan lost his mind from the guilt and was chaptered out. The whole thing was very sad and crazy as shit to watch. It definitely fucked my mind up. Our DS in basic told us we will see people due in training and I didn't belive it. I also seen one of our tanks with the turret blown off in OIF1. It was A33 3/67 armor. Very fucked up times that I think of almost every day of my life especially IRAQ
@@imlurkn5291 That's a really hard story to read, so I know it was hellish to actually live it! I'm so sorry that you had those experiences.
In training, I climbed into the driver's hatch once and it reeked of pine oil. When I asked the mechanic why, he said they he had just finished cleaning the brains of the prior mechanic out. Apparently, the driver had PMCS'd the tank, noted that the Halon bottle was showing empty and deadlined it. The mechanic was going to replace the Halon bottle and when he cracked the nut to remove the empty one, 800 psi took his head off. He hadn't put the safety pin back in since he thought there was no pressure, but it was a faulty gage that was reading 0 psi, not an empty bottle.
What has helped me deal with the thoughts and memories of dead friends, has been to focus solely on the good times, like your water skiing weekend for example, and to cherish the brief times we had peace. Even today we could lose more friends to drunk drivers (like my dad who was killed when I was 16), accidents and disease. I try to value today more than ever. I pray that helps a little bit.
I have also surrendered to Jesus Christ and learned that people are going to mostly reject Him and be damned, so I work hard to be kind and show the hateful world His love for them...whether they accept it or not. The inner peace and contentment that my faith brings me every day is precious. I would recommend that to everyone, even if it turns out that the Bible was B.S.
@@purelife9000 Man that is so sad about the Halon bottle killing that soldier in the drivers hole. I worked for GDLS for 10 years and have replaced many bottles and pinning them is an absolute must. It's very very serious thing even if the gage reads zero and this is that prime example of why you should always pin it. That could have happened to anyone. That's really sad man. When I worked for GDLS I almost messed up big-time when was in a rush and forgot to zero the hydrolic pressure before I took the filters off the goose neck on the reservoir for annual services. The one on the left came off as Normal which made me think everything was fine then when I got the the one on the right I could barely turn it but my stupid ass stayed persistent. Finally after maybe half a turn straining all muscles I looked up at the pressure gage and it was at like 1000+ psi. I felt so stupid but also majorly releaved. I also learned that yes the filter on the left will come off as normal with no pressure and the one on the right is holding the pressure if its not zeroed. Not saying I would have died but it wouldnt have been good lmao. I've had some close calls in tanks that people probably would think I'm full of shit but as you know shit happens on those killing machines. The craziest thing that ever happened to me on a tank was gunnery table 7 in Germany. I was a fast loader so I was loading for another crew with a new gunner that had a habit of saying "on the way" at the same time he squeezed trigger. We had a misfire because the breech didn't come all the way up when the round was loaded(I know you know exactly what I'm saying) so I took the breech operating handle and started beating on the bottom to make the breech come up those last 2" so the firing pin can touch the primmer. The problem was my dumbass didn't disarm the main gun like I was supposed to but THANK GOD I kept my head back all the way close to the ready ammo door and far from the breech. When I got it up to fire I can't even remember what I said but all I know is SPC Rouge squeezed those Cadillacs while he said "ON THE WAY" and I got hit in the CVC with the last 1"or so of recoil. I swear on my life I'm not lying to you, It didn't even hurt because it was at the very end of recoil and just smacked my cvc. If my head was up close to the breech I'd be dead for sure. I wasn't smart enough to disarm main gun in heat of the moment of the engagement but thank God I was smart enough to keep my head all the way back. The look on the gunner and tc and my face had to have been priceless. I'm very thankful I kept my head back man. But thank you for those kind words and I do struggle with God and angry at everything. Hope you have a great day and thanks for sharing that with me. RIP to the soldier died from the Halon bottle
I lost it when I saw the Charlie brown Christmas tree on that Abrams turret at the end! Someone took great pride in securing it to the turret knowing it was going to be in a photo op.
That little tree caught my attention too but you Charlie Brown reference is hilarious!
Clearly it was a tactical, modular Charlie Brown Christmas Tree. 😄
pretty sure thats the radio aerial
So someone strapped each branch to it? IDK, like Capi, I was an average infantryman. ;p@@Tyr1001
Tanker here, the other point of berm drills where we start low is we're almost completely hidden until ready to engage, then only the turret is exposed when firing, which has the strongest armor.
Yup and hull down tactics have been a hallmark of US and NATO tank tactics since WW2. That's why NATO tanks are so tall in comparison to Russian/Chinese ones.
@@mrvwbug4423 They are tall due to being livable for the crew. Soviet tanks have poor gun depression and lack any space inside plus 20 tons of armor in order to be small and low. Soviet terrain is also mostly flat so the design ignores any need to depress the gun as much as NATO tanks which have to fight in all kinds of terrain. Combat in a Soviet tank wears the crew out.
This has been done since WW2. Problem nowadays is drones, artillery and ATGM´s. Tanks simply do not have the same level of protection they used to have. This might be changing right now with modern APS.
@@mrvwbug4423 NATO tanks are so tall because they do not use an auto loader. This kind of tactics have been used since WW2 by all parties. It is not like just the west came up with the idea to stay behind cover.
@@sierraecho884 Exactly. But the combat tactics the Soviets appear to be using are not what they did in WW2 nor what their training for operations in NWE is. So, what are they doing and why?
Yet another ex tanker here and you hit the nail on the head with this video, especially that last bit. While at NTC my tank was one of the deadliest tanks there and that was because the four of us were very familiar with our tank and commands rarely had to be given on when to move, when to load a round or anything like that. Our training is phenomenal and so are our tanks.
ваши танки феноменально горят даже от попадания устаревшего РПГ :))
I was stationed at Ft. Bliss when the first production M1 was delivered for the 3rd ACR in 1981. While a group of officers and NCOs were chatting about it, a friend and I climbed all over it, looking inside the turret and checking how thick the armored skirt was. It took about ten minutes before the guys from 3rd ACR noticed that both of us had Air Defense shoulder patches, not cavalry ones, so we were summarily ordered to depart.
I'd already seen the XM1 all too closely when it was being tested at McGregor range when it jumped twenty feet clear across the road our van was driving on, missing us by about ten feet. 😬
Tanks fight like infantry. Fire and move. The infantryman, ideally, does not stay in place in a trench line to fire constantly from the same position, but moves between positions between engagements. This makes him harder to hit and focus down by the enemy, since his position is not known. Even at its simplest level, ducking down between engagements means you're not exposed during a reload, etc.
The tanks observe similar protocol. Reloading in cover, observing the battlefield with only the commander's sight visible, and where possible, change firing positions between shots to keep the enemy from having their weapons pre-aimed at them the next time they emerge to take a shot.
Except at ram fires at speed with accuracy
Yep, berm drills are the foundation of gunnery. You're very correct. As one section is dropping down into defilade, the other is up engaging. Same when bounding by section. The possible ATGM team already has guns on it as soon as they pop up.
My dad was a fuel truck driver during the Gulf War (not deployed). Killing the logistians can be catastrophic.
The Abrams, like any other tank since there insemption is a thirsty girl... even compared to heavy trucks.
Actually the tanks role when supporting the Mechanized is to provide support by fire from a good hull down position. on the commander's call they can go from support by fire to attack by fire. You dont need to be so close to engage the enemy. Civilians need to understand that. This is not world of tanks or war thunder where facehugging is prevalent. If the tanks have to move positions they will do it in sections and as Bounding technique so that one section covers the other. They will NOT move as one platoon. Here is the kicker: When you set up in the initial support by fire, You have 2 designated fallback positions for the platoon, a route to infil and exfil and a secondary support by fire position already preplotted by the commander as per company overlay. All of this informations is briefed at the OPORD and task organized by the commander.
Agreed. I think we can see the effectiveness of the shoot-and-scoot tactics employed by the Ukrainian infantry squads while most Russian tank columns just stopped where they were, not having a clue to what they ought to do next. I think the takeaway from this is to build equipment around the brains that is going to use them. This is were a professional army trumps a conscript army anytime. Ukrainians were drilled to the max by their NATO trainers since 2014, now we see the fruits of their labor.
i was on m1a1 in the army in the early 2000s... I don't know where these guys always get their speed numbers for this tank... it went much faster than I have ever heard from these kinds of videos. The thing was a beast. Unless you've actually been on one and done some maneuvers, you just can't understand, haha.
The tank is quiet enough to be sitting in a slight depression, just off the road (in the woods), and have a humvee drive by without noticing you. Its crazy. On asphalt, you actually hear the track thumping the ground before the engine.
Alas, the army and I didn't get along, but I still love this tank.
Drove the tank with a mine plow attached and could do 60.
I wonder if the actual top speed is still classified, and the lower number is the official story.
@@AlexandarHullRichter usually the engine is governed to avoid running down the engine lifetime during operations which limits speed. When that governor is taken off the Abrams can allegedly hit almost 70mph with that 1500 horsepower engine
For everyone who argues there is no place for the tank on the modern battlefield: The same could be said for; 4 wheeled vehicles, artillery, and the infantry, and it would be just as wrong, because war is hell and tank have it's purpose. Combined arms means just that.
Your explanation is "war is hell"? A quote?
tf?
After WW1, they also said tanks were irrelevant.
After WW2, they said every branch was irrelevant except the air force and their nuclear-capable bombers and their escorts (later their ICBMs)
Before Vietnam, they said tanks and any non-nuclear artillery and heavy weapons were irrelevant (again)
During Vietnam, they said dogfights were irrelevant bc of air-to-air missiles
During Iraq and Afghanistan, they said there'd never be another conventional war
Guess how many times they were wrong
It's just a pity Putin isn't on the battlefield. I know of a few people interested in taking out that tango.
@@SlavGod47 They think they're right 'til proven wrong, Afganistan ,Vietnam are case studies. motivated guys with rifles and RPG's can do a lot if they're willing to take casualties.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see drones on tanks in the future. These tanks already have encrypted wireless networks, so launching spotting drones or even offensive ones does not seem like much of a stretch.
You can actually link a Scan eagle and raven already to the tank once its in the air.
I think a pair of dedicated drone vehicles would go well in a combined arms environment. One command platform and one forward deployed rearmament/refuel platform. Modular drones using AT and/or AP weapons serviced and carried by a vehicle that sits back at about mortar carrier range. Tanks won't carry drones, their mission has always been direct fire, but a system dedicated to the capability would be hugely effective and slot in nicely. It would end up being both cheaper (thus more of them) and more survivable than helicopters that fill that role now.
@@nunyabusiness9433 cheap and small drones could provide a big accuracy boost in some situations, so carrying a few makes sense imo. It would help to spend less time looking for targets and take a lot of the guessing out of the shooting. Dedicated vehicles for launching drones and loitering munitions can definitely be devastating in some circumstances, but those can be launched by infantry as well...
@@b127_1 A drone capable of carrying an ATGM or MG is probably beyond something man portable, and you'd want the infrastructure needs to fall on somebody other than the people fighting what's in front of them. For recon and fire support calls at the platoon level they would absolutely make sense, though, you're right about that, and that's entirely within the wheelhouse of a platoon leader.
@@nunyabusiness9433 yeah, it'll be a while before you can take out a tank with a switchblade. Launching atgm equipped drones in the field would be a massive accomplishment. Then you'd basically have an aircraft carrier on wheels.
Can we all just acknowledge how smooth that add transition was?…. I love the tank talk… but like damn, that transition was amazimg
While the cost-benefit analysis of survivability systems and training a crew is a thing, the US also has a doctrine of building survivability into its platforms because it reduces recruitment anxiety and increases battlefield morale which translates into operational effectiveness. An infantry unit that knows it has a fearless cadre of medics with a reputation of coming out and saving your ass no matter what, has a massive morale advantage over an infantry unit that does not.
And that is success on the battlefield when two near-peer units are grinding away at each other like on Okinawa, and it comes down to who's will is going to break first, the men that know they have Desmond T Doss on their side will prevail. Can I get an an unironic hooah?
Been years since I got out and said it, but... yeah, unironic hooah. The total force working together in a single purpose instills a lot of confidence into troops, no matter their MOS. "One Force, One Fight", it's more than just a slogan.
Yeah the blowout panels in the Abrams make a huge difference for crew survivability. Ammo cookoff in the Abrams will damage the turret, and obviously force a crew evac, but it may not even successfully immobilize the vehicle, much less have the turret join the space program like the T-72.
This feels like a pretty direct extension of American vs Soviet tank doctrine in WWII. The American Sherman tank wasn't on paper super amazing when compared with other tanks, but in addition to the simple fact that the Sherman was designed with the grander war in mind (The sherman was easy to service, easy to transport, and light enough to not crush every bridge it had to cross) it also had a high crew survivability. The US lost an average of 1 crewman for every tank lost. This is compared to the T-34, which lost an average of four crewman for every tank lost. American forces learned the value over time of having tank crews that could survive long enough to become seasoned. A skilled crew is difficult to value on paper, but the results in the war were pretty clear with Shermans often batting well above their weight class as an infantry support tank.
That was a fantastic post.
Hooah
@@450Garrett Yeah obviously has nothing to do with the fact that shermans were mostly facing Italian tanks and light German tanks, while T-34's were facing the best that Germany had.
Fascinating that a 40+ year old design was so good it could be updated to be very good today. Obvious it happens (hi B-52) but it's still a tremendously impressive feat of engineering.
Except Japanse, Korean tanks, all others are 40year old design.
And not just the B-52. Most of the USAF fleet has updated designs that can trace back to 40+ years.
M1 was MIC done right, unlike F-35, especially B version, waste of money, James Mathis, eat your heart out.
.. and so is AR/M16/4s. Despite many detractors, another well done program.
Boeing have done it like 40 times lol.
@@natel7382 but 0 times in SLS !
When we transitioned from the M60 to the M1 in 1988, we used to say the M60 was an $800,000 rolling casket, but when we got the M1, (and it was only the 105 mm), it was like transitioning from a gremlin to a Mercedes! Then in the Gulf war showed how well the M1A1 could operate! I believe if you have a well-trained veteran crew, the M1 will still hold up tank to tank in this modern day!
Tank to Tank,sure,but a Javelin will make into a rolling casket.
@@rick-be hard to say javelin in itself have very little explosive power alot of the time you see tanks turret flying is beacuse of ammo cook off abrams have blast panals now no question the javelin could knock out the abrams and mission kill it but i bet there a higher chance of tank crew surviving then your typical russian t series tank
@@patthonsirilim5739 Stopping the tank is the only concern in combat.KIAs are for the staticians.
@@rick-be Sorry, with the TROPHY system that comes from Isreal, the Javelin will be defeated as well...
These two guys are pretty good narrators. The guy with the beard seems to understand the topic a bit more than the other guy, but the other guy's still pretty good and he makes up for it by being kinda funny
?
Great video! The Battle of 73 Easting was definitely proof of the Abrams capability, but also the proof that investing in awareness and training pays dividends. Had the Iraq forces been better trained , maybe it wouldn't have been as completely one sided. Still, the American tankers ran into an Oh Shit scenario and immediately cleaned up. You cant do that without excellent discipline and training. Much respect.
Yep. Saudi Abram's sucked in Yemen apparently, for some reason ... Turkish Leopards sucked even more in Syria despite arguably better tank ..
@ERRATAS 003 There were 14 Abrams deployed to Afghanistan. None were ever lost there.
@@FourFront99 I think he meant to say Iraq, and I think something like 20 Abrams were lost (contrary to the 7 most people say) during Desert Storm
There is a great video on 73 easting from the prospective of a Bradley scout vehicle's commander.
The guy tells a great story.
Google 73 easting and it pops up.
@ERRATAS 003 most tank where lost to large IED overall the Abrams definitely had the higher kill rate and none were lost in Afghanistan.....
I think one overlooked part, is not just the cost of training, but rather, a crew that survives a catastrophic event also learns from that. So theres even more of a reason to keep them alive, so others can learn from them, along with them being more effective.
Yes good point. Surviving a tank battle probably gives experience and potentially some critical advice to pass on to whoever you train when you get back
You know before I enlisted I never realized how MASSIVE Abrams tanks were. The first one I ever saw was at Ft. Knox when I was visiting a friend after Air Assault school at Campbell. I remember thinking “Man…that thing must run on pure BDE” 😂. I always thought tankers were cool dudes and during OIF anytime we had Abrams support it made me smile.
In reality they're sweaty teenagers who shit in Gatorade bottles and smell it 2 days at a time while cooking in a giant metal can
@@saltyfloridaman7163 come on they're too full of shit to fit it all in one Gatorade bottle they just use em as piss bottles and shit in shopping bags
I kid of course tankers are pretty cool guys especially if you're and engineer, I wonder why? ;)
I saw it the live the first time a year later during enlistment. First joint exercise with Tankers. My APC looked like a toy when this behemoth appeared
You should check out some of the WW2 tanks. They come across as even bigger, as we had not developed the same level of 'miniaturisation' yet for components like the power train.
The lesson described at the end of the video was learned in WW2. Our officers saw the drastic change in pilots highlighted specifically in the battle of midway. By this time in the war we had gotten on par with Japanese airplanes and tactics. We also found out just how valuable the pilots in the seats were when they went up against squads of almost entirely new pilots. We valued our men. They valued glory and honor. In the end those Japanese pilots got plenty of glory and honor as individuals. But they lost the war to much more experienced men. I just hope to God our officers don't ever forget those lessons learned in blood.
that's why the Army's study of 73 Easting where they created a detailed simulation of everyone's actions in the fight and then switched out the equipment to see what would happen if the US tanks were T-72s and the Iraqi tanks were M1s, showing that the battle would have unfolded essentially the same because the key component was crew training, not equipment.
"...effective against a near peer ally ". I'm always impressed with your "Average Infantryman" reviews. You have a excellent presentation style and you make the subject matter interesting...well done Sir, well done indeed. I wasn't a Tanker and I only know what I've read and have seen in videos but the Abrams seems like a really good tank and it has given good service over the years. My personal philosophy has always been that it never hurts to have the best gear but it's always the player and not the glove that makes the difference.
A big gun that can move around the battlefield will always be relevant. Armor may or may not be relevant due to weight, but combined arms, active protection, and used correctly, it will ALWAYs have a purpose. This might evolve to a mobile missile carrier, remote controlled, or even AI. A tank used today correctly certainly has a purpose, especially supporting the infantry.
Eh, they've tested missile tanks before, and they performed worse. The Big gun always wins on "the draw" so to speak, and you need armor to survive being hit by a kintetic penetrator that doesn't care much about ADS
@@dragon12234 futur tanks may survive small arms up to 30mm but that's probably all, situational awareness and mobility will be the thing you want to have
@@zzaronn explain to me how tanks will regress from protecting against missiles and sabo rounds to only being able to stop 30mm frontally and nothing more?
@@sporperino when anti tank weapon will be too powerful. But with NATO caring about tank crew's life it may not happen. But a lightly armored tank can be much faster and with a better awareness they should be able to survive
@@zzaronn What do you mean by an anti tank weapon becomes too powerful? And why wouldn't they slap on some era blocks on it? Plus, tanks like the Merkava and M1A2 have active protection systems that prematurely detonate warheads like missiles if they get too close so why wouldn't they just add that?
That transition to the ad was so smooth that I didn't even realize that I was entering an ad, good job.
All that gave it away was his beard disappearing
How is nobody talking about the smoothest transition to an ad in UA-cam history. Literally turned a subtle offshoot into the ad. Brilliant.
I remember watching a video where the UK basically let some troops dictate some test/experimental upgrades to one of their tanks, and the coolest one I saw was a full 360 vision system for the driver (I think) where they were able to wear a VR headset and "see through" the tank all around. I think a fully developed system like this would be the next logical step for the driver or maybe the commander. It would allow much easier control and much less micromanaging for the driver. Maybe mix it with augmented reality to overlay driving paths or the like. It would also let the tank have another set of eyes when in combat.
i want to see VLS tubes on tanks that fire switch blade 300 and switch balde600 drones or maybe a vls stinger or javelin unit you strap on but for real the 360 veiw is a great idea put the crew in a armored bath tub like A-10
That’s a great idea, as was the opinion that I just read about giving tanks a mini-fleet of small drones that can be above the tank and give real time targeting information for a javelin-like system that could even shoot over buildings and the like without even seeing the tank, thermal imaging or not. Shoukd go into business and creat this.
@@SirDeadPuppy Honestly, a system for launching observation drones is probably a better idea than mine. even if they weren't armed, having a small surveillance drone that follows your vehicle around as required would be a huge advantage for urban, or really any, combat, doubly so if the feed could be shared to other vehicles or base. Hiding from ground surveillance is much easier than hiding from air surveillance. I also see that at some point cannon fired munitions will be paced by launched missiles (or drones), and having VLS or a magazine fed launcher would be the logical next step.
@@bracoop2 i think you chould do the same for strikers and even the new hummer something cheap and bolt on the main thing whould be the software to make it all smooth and seamless so they chould network it all of it to every one who needs it the switch blade 300 looks like it fit on a guys back so im sure a tank or anything with wheels chould hold a few of them and yea! lol sign me up if DOD buys into it lol
@@SirDeadPuppy it's dangerous to overtech war systems. suddenly you have a blue screen and then youare fked
What Ukarine has shown is that armor without protection and support is basically useless
The US military has heavily invested in protection and support to make sure that its armor doesn't get shredded as easily as Russia tanks
Ukraine shows that Russians left behind tons of broken down tanks. 100's of them.
You see very few videos of Russian tanks without support getting destroyed.
Abrams on the other hand has never faced any challenge of an army with a comparable tech level. Israelis did and they got some "lessons" out of it. One of them was infantry support and the other one is that you need to slap hard the artillery commander before you go to a mission.
this has been known since FOREVER is just that the Russians seem to be extremely. incompetent with their tactics xD
Tanks without infantry support are basically just chunks of metal, blind sitting ducks, that’s been known since WW2
@@maxmagnus777
The issue here is that Russia APS as well as made lofty claims about its tanks
"During a reported test conducted by the Russian military in 1999 the T-90 was exposed to a variety of RPG, ATGM and APFSDS munitions. When equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA the T-90 could not be penetrated by any of the APFSDS or ATGM used during the trial"
Yet Russia armor is getting smashed with ease
Switchblade destroy easy you mbt with top superbest squad and supertruper tactics 😂!!!
One advantage of abrams is that even if it gets destroyed the chance of crew to survive much higher than crew of t72 being hit
Basically any penetrating round into a t series tank is VERY likely to strike ammo. So yeah the abrams crew has a much better chance vs the rolling bomb of the t series
Thank you to USA and the rest of the NATO for helping to protect my country (Lithuania)
🇺🇲❤️🇱🇹 Thanks for standing up for Taiwan and treating the CCP as they are, criminals.
:)
Thank you for protecting us as well! ^^
Here's another Fun Fact for you guys, actually a "Holy Shit!" quick story. Stationed in Alaska in Charlie Co. (ABN) 4/9, 172nd LIB between 79' and 82'. I had surgery and was reassigned out of a line platoon to the headquarters platoon in the motor pool. We had Dodge M880's, 3/4 ton trailers, snowmobiles and a couple of M151's with trailers. I was driving the 1SG out to the gunnery range where the mortar platoon was for the week in the winter. I had to stop at a "T" intersection of the trail system and due to the alders (the name of the trees IIRC), I had to inch forward to see down the cross trail. As I inched the nose of the 880 out I was looking left as the 1SG was looking to the right. I see this huge amount of blowing snow hauling ass toward us down the trail. Just as I slammed the 880 into reverse and hit the gas out of the intersection, this tank that I had never seen before flies by the front of the truck. On the turret side was painted "Yukon Jack". They about killed the 1SG and myself. A few years later I see a plastic model kit with the box art of the "Yukon Jack". It had been in Alaska doing cold weather testing of electronics and the hydraulic systems I found out later.
Funny 😂😂👍
I've never heard of the missile explanation, but the Abrams driving back & forth is just it going from the defilade to enfilade.
This essentially is being under coverage from a hill, natural formation or burm where the only thing exposed is the optics.
Once the gunner finds an enemy tank it will expose the turret by going into the enfilade and fire before returning quickly back to cover.
The gunner and TC will resume scanning for another target.
The uncomfortable fact for any service member is that the DoD has calculated the value of your life. Good news is that its usually high enough to warrant some safety features.
But not padding, blast seats….or reliable seat belts.
it's why they named it the Abrams, Gen Abrams cared about his troops, he was one of the guys. Jungle fatigues with wrinkles in them and chomping his cigar
Have you heard of life insurance? How about medical insurance?
Amusingly, so has every automaker out there. Look up the Ford Pinto scandal where Ford decided paying out lawsuits was cheaper than fixing the 'explody' vehicle.
Abrams do have a fire extinguisher system if a fire should happen
I believe that the newest M1A2 sep 4 has 7 thermal cameras, allowing it 360 degree situational awareness. It also has Trophy APS, and with new 120 MAP HE round they can shoot everything from armored vehicles, structures, and can airburst to kill troops and aircraft. With predictive software, each shot has the accuracy of a guided missile with automatic lead. A possible upgrade might even include a seeker head and guidance fins for even more accuracy.
The Abrams is already an apex tank, but upgrades are making it unbelievably capable
Future upgrades will have AI assisted detection and targeting software. Coordination with drones, including carrying its own is around the corner.
And where would the 7 thermal cameras be seen from? There is only 1 Sensor on the tank that will detect incoming ATGM's and that comes from the Trophy APS. The tank is far ahead of its time with the current technology and will remain the tank for the foreseeable future.
I've been having a hard time finding sep4 info beyond the most basic descriptions. You happen to have a link that has more info? In particular, I didn't know the details on the thermal imaging. That has to be something the commander has to be stoned about
@@CCM1199
The driver, TC, Crows .50, gunner, two rear cameras, and I think one more, might be wrong. They have varying capabilities, based on size. Obviously the driver and rear cameras have less range but can probably spot a dismount at 300. The gunner, TC, and Crows all have independent optics that have long range capability and can scan different sectors. Many armored vehicles across the world are upgrading to this capability.
The tank has the same challenge the ATGM team does- stay undetected, see the enemy first, shoot first, and kill. The tank will use it's superior optics and electronics and ATGM teams will use it's small size and mobility.
I was a tank mechanic and m88a2 crewman during GWOT. tank crews are hard to replace and they maintain and love their vehicles. the best tank crews can keep their vehicle running and fighting for months without outside help besides supply. i had an excellent platoon and would follow my tankers anywhere they went. the best job and friends ive ever had.
Lol...reminds me of my wenches with wrenches...
Loved my guys...hell I was their go to designated driver in garrison...did all I could for them...so they could help .e keep my tank fighting...
Except for circuit breaker 19...could never figure out why that constantly blew on our m1a1 AIMS...replaced the GPS 3 times and several cables before it worked.
You neglected to mention the addition of the battle proven Israeli Trophy APS system. I think that will even up the game with ATGMs, including top attack munitions. This should give the Abrams a significant life extension.
I heard it's quite expensive.
@@Baostaff2274 Money ain't a problem when it comes to US military, especially if it's a proven & effective system/technology. 🤣🙃
@@Baostaff2274 900k to mount on a Merkva, not cheap, not prohibitive.
watching those systems on video working looked like scifi movies
@@Baostaff2274 and heavy, 3-4 tons
I think the U.S. has a far more capable combined arms doctrine, unmatched real-time intelligence capability, and logistics capability on the battlefield that would also give the Abrams an advantage. In addition, it wouldn't suffer from the corruption, unprofessional ism, and lack of training that we're seeing in the Russian army.
Good old berm drills.
As a long-serving NCO, you hit the nail on the head when you talked about combined arms and training. When the US uses tanks, we rarely send them forward on their own. They are preceded by Scouts (like me) in HMMWV's, Bradley CFV's and sometimes on foot. Our name says it all. We scouted enemy positions, marked strongpoints and reported enemy location, strengths, compositions, etc. to the tankers. This way the tank platoon/troop commander can devise the best strategy of attack. We could also call down artillery and air strikes on the enemy strongpoints, weakening or obliterating them before the tanks even arrived. When the tanks did advance, they were often closely supported by either mounted scouts or infantry who could rapidly dismount to clear urban/wooded areas. They'd also have helicopter gunships hovering right behind and probably fixed wing aircraft stacked up for thousands of feet. In other words, the US doesn't mindlessly drive forward in tanks. We use tanks as they are meant to be used: the armored fist at the point of a full body strike.
I believe the future of tanks will rely heavily on active protection systems, something that counters ATGMs using a computer and multiple sensors to aim locate and shoot an explosive detonating round destroying whatever projectile is coming in the direction of the tank. We’ve seen examples of these systems in testing now it’s just a matter of time before they’re implemented and perfected on military vehicles.
You know that is already the case?
Sounds expensive
@@mcyg123 it is.
@somna It d true but it van counter athor munition
@somna APS is not meant to defeat APFSDS but stuff like ATGMs. You need armor for kinetic penetrators
I had a book from the mid 1990's on the 1st Gulf War. In that book it stated the 4 M1A1 Abrams tanks had been knocked out due to anti tank weapons. One of which was a T72 tank that shot the Abrams in the side of the hull, knocking out the Abrams. These claims are corroborated by an old show on what was the Military Channel, now the Americans Heros Channel. I remember them interviewing the tank crew from the knocked out Abrams. It was at night, lots of smoke from oil fires. The tank crew was dealing with Iraqi prisoners when their tank was hit. This one incident changed how tanks were to deal with prisoners in the first Gulf War. Tanks will not deal with prisoners, keep the prisoners moving so away from the Battle. Let another unit, like infantry or MPs deal with the prisoners.
Something isn't right about your story. A T72 has never knocked out an Abrams before. Ever. Other abrams have in friendly fire incidents.
@@joekent5675 official figures from the U.S. government. 23 Abrams were lost in the first gulf War, another 530 Abrams tanks were beyond field repair in Iraq and Afghanistan by 2006.
@@joekent5675 Yes, there was one knock-out by a T-72. It's the differenced between "knocked out" and "destroyed". The tank was repairable after the battle, so it is correct to say "No M1s were destroyed", but not correct to say "No M1s were knocked out by enemy action."
The Abrams tank knocked out at night was knocked out by another Abrams tank which could see it but not identify it due to the range, but flashes indicated it must be firing so it was engaged and knocked out. The flashes turned out to be RPG round exploding harmlessly on the Abrams frontal armor.
@@ODST6262 OK. I am incorrect them.
For what it is worth, the last generation M60A3/TTS that we had in West Germany 🇩🇪 had a stabilized 105 mm gun. As this video stated, that technology was incorporated into the Abrams tank program.
The Abrams far outclasses the Russian counterpart and the driver and gunnery training along with actual modern Tactics makes the US tanks and crew just far superior and still viable.
does it pit against modern Russian tanks with Russian crews? no.
but still, you decided you are best.🤣
@@bprogressive Based on the demonstrated performance of both tanks in warfare, OP is likely right.
A tank's effectiveness heavily depends on the way it is employed, and the Russians are disregarding the lessons they learned in WW2. Hence, an M1 Abrams tanks is almost certainly more effective than Russian tanks when deployed based on their armies's doctrine.
On paper, a Russian tank is comparable to any NATO tank. In practise, war is NEVER a 1v1, and there are many things that technical specifications cannot tell you about ultimate performace.
@@bprogressive as conclusively demonstrated - yes.
@@bprogressive we have seen what modern Russian tanks and crews do and it's not impressive. So I am correct if you have some other evidence present it or be silent
@@solarlux7856 hmm. at last, I found some logical explanations with a lesser degree of " we are best" narrative.
Addition with thousands of anti tank weapons of different types and calibres clearly proves Russian tanks are still a very potent weapon and a threat to US war machine.
Lets chill a bit. Yes, "cheap" high tech anti tank missiles are reducing tank effectiveness but much of the Russian disaster is also poor training, driving down the road in column seems to be about the most sophisticated maneuvers they are capable of. Add to that there seems to be no attempt at combined arms either. Training costs lots of money.
I think the Russians have adopted and are using drones to scan the battlefield and spot anti-tank units and coordinates with artillery batteries and howitzer to destroy them. And it has worked so far against NLAW and other anti tank units. The javelin is still effective coz of its range of 2 km which is difficult to be spoted by the drone.
Yep.
You mean like the just like the us army drove down the highways in to iraq lol
@@soup31314 Nothing wrong driving down the highway when that is justified. The problem is when that is all you know how to do. The US does, the Russians, not so much.
@@munizabegum8679 Evidence that this is working for the Russians? Furthermore, spotting someone in cover is actually very hard, especially from 1000's of feet if they are good at it, unless they use thermal and even then there are counter measures.
You know you're old when it hurts you when someone shows black and white footage while they're talking about 1982. And also seems to think that the Cold war started in 1974.
I now know how I used to annoy my retired paper route and lawn mowing customers in the 70s when I talked about world war I being so far in the past.
Since a modern battlefield is essentially always combined arms, it's a little misleading to look at just one weapons system such as the M-1 in isolation. Allied tanks will be supported by integrated infantry, air, anti-air, artillery, surveillance/intel, etc. so it's more a matter of what the Abrams and allied tanks can ADD to the overall mix rather than what they can only do by themselves. As for the entire mix, the M-1 can still be an invaluable addition; as for a "by itself" scenario, I say let the video gamers decide because that is where it's most likely to occur!
Well the US still has Tanks quite separated from other divisions which I consider to be a weakness of the US doctrine.
@@tomendruweit9386 Tank divisons do not mean only tanks? The Germans in ww2 put plenty of motorized infantry in their tank divisions, I am sure the US is not that far behind.
@@ilpazzo1257 what I mean is that Americans do use combined arms but still with them being seperate
@@tomendruweit9386 Correct. That is mainly for maintenance and supply reasons and doesn't apply to armored cavalry units (of old). In combat the battalions in the brigades cross attach down to platoon level into combined arms units supported by artillery and AA assets (what little the USA has). 4 tanks companies, 4 Bradley companies, 2 recon platoons, and an attached artillery battalion equals one force of 3 tank companies and 1 Bradley company and 1 recon platoon and one force of 1 tank company and 3 Bradley companies and 1 recon platoon both supported by the artillery battalion. This can also be a 2 tank and 2 Bradley mix and the companies can mix by exchanging platoons.
@@tomendruweit9386 just fyi (old broken knees and back m1 tanker) yes, while we have armored battalions that are just tanks. We do train in combined tactics. And when we do get deployed it is not uncommon for a tank company to have it's platoons split up to supplement infantry and other soft units and basically be integrated I to that company.
Our unit in Iraq had two of our 3 platoons taken and we were given 2 mechanized infantry platoons (with their Bradley's and other soft dismounted weapons. Since we already had training on combined arms tactics we blended quite nicely. Crunchiest to scout...tanks to do hard kills...and punish positions with very accurate direct cannon fire.
Yes so while in garrison we are a pure armor unit, we trained for several possibilities.
Episode suggestion: I was wondering if you could do something on some rudimentary tactics 101 for us armchair military watchers. How you attack a town (air support? Artillery? Troop positioning?) or how you breach a building? I like all of the videos on the hardware but have little understanding how each part works into the overall strategy.
You would be suprised at how lenghthy and complicated that answer is when you use combined arms doctrine. You have to consider all the weapons and crew you have, where are your logistics, the defender's positions and capability, interactions amongst your available weapon types, interaction amongst Army, Air Force and sometimes Navy assets. And that is just the very top of the list....
Coronet and other atgms are ambush weapons. It would take an awesome active defensive system to neutralize that threat. Right now the best bet is good recon and infantry accompanying your AFV. Having some droness around to scout around probably would also help. like any weapon system ever made the Abrams needs to be used with the proper tactics and with the proper role.
I got to see a M1A2 Abrams at the San Antonio Air Show. It was real dope.
as with the kido butai after the battle of midway, the aircraft carriers were replaced but the experienced crew (mechanics, armorers, ship crew) were irreplaceable.
can't believe how good @Task & Purpose 's content is - amazing...
A big difference in M1 survivability compared to T72 survivability - the M1 has no "turret launcher". If enemy fire sets off the T72's ammo magazine, the crew dies instantly and the turret is launched. If enemy fire sets off the M1 ammo magazine, the blowout panels direct the explosion safely away from the crew. Only the driver might be in serious danger, if the turret is pointed to the rear (thus the ammo magazine is directly above the driver).
Thats because the T-72's Hull and turret armor can be pierced by 25MM rounds at the minimum
By 1977 the decision had been made to eventually move the new tank to a 120 mm gun. After head-to-head testing between the Royal Ordnance L11A5 and the Rheinmetall Rh-120, the latter was chosen. The turret designs of the two prototypes were modified to allow either gun to be fitted. Although the L11/M256 120mm gun was chosen to be the main weapon of the M1 Abrams in 1979, the improved ammunition for the gun still was not fully developed, thus delaying its fielding until 1984.[19]
That ad transition was so smooth. I was confused as to when it went from video to add
It’s amazing how the armor of the M1 Abrams still remains a classified secret even to this day.
As long as it's in service it's probably going to be classified
It's not 🤣 I have civvy friends in several countries that found out about the DU uranium lacing in armor pre Desert Shield
The specifics are classified , the make is well known and for years had protests related to it
There will always be a use for the tank and a counter to the tank, this has happened before in the 1973 Yom Kippur war but tanks still proven their use after that ATGM scare. Also the Russians are using Cold War Era tactics and tanks. The tank itself isn’t obsolete it’s the tactics. So new tactics will need to be devolved and test. Check out The Chieftan’s video on it.
Indeed. The old tactics don't work anymore.
Says the tanker. Dead.
Just see the contrast between Fallujah and Chechnya and the answer is right there in front of you. Both were urban cesspools but only one turned out to be a graveyard for tanks.
Man. Your videos are so good they should be classified as top secret!
The Sherman actually had a similar crew survivability focus. It has one of the best crew survival rates of the war, and I think flat out the best among mainstay tanks (i.e. not the specialized ones, but the grunt ones). Crews would get a Sherman shot out from under them, go back, get a new tank, and be back at it.
Sometimes, many times they got cooked. I remember an interveiw with a maitenance guy that had to repair shermans in WW2, he said it was gruesome,they would come in with body parts still inside,They'd fix it,paint over the blood and guts and give it to the next crew, I know I wouldn't to ask what happened to the last guys, seeing welded up holes from 88's.Plus we didn't face many german tanks, we outnumbered them tremendously. Big tank battles were Eastern front.
@@jmy7622 That experience was the case for every tank crew in WWII. The Russians lost tens of thousands of T-34s from 1941 through 1945. I'm quite sure that the poor sods who had to hose out the recovered ones saw some rather gnarly things.
But they used extremely flammable airplane fuel - the Germans called them "Tommy cookers" :(
@@mrzoinky5999Same old tired bullshit! The fuel was not the problem. Knocked out Sherman's that were examined found the fuel tanks rarely were ruptured. It was the placement of the ammo racks that caused cook offs. Added armor and different placement solved this.
Its the next generation of abrams thats getting major upgrades to its fire control. Current abrams fire control is top of the line for 20 years ago, but out of date now. yes its likely behind the most modern t-72 variant in fire control. It does have Trophy, which is huge. That and combined arms are the difference. Not fire control. Look at how the abrams performed in yemen with the saudis. Very very poorly since it wasnt used properly. Same with turkish Leopard 2s in syria. Unsupported tanks are extremely vulnerable. Thats been true as long as theres been tanks.
Exactly, which is why the DoD is working on upgrading FCS to modern standards and adding APS to every new tank. But training is a massive part of how tanks are effective. You could have the top of the line Equipment but if your troops are braindead (Russia, Saudi, Iraq back in the 90’s) then they are going to get rocked. Which is why we still maintain some sort of edge against rivals. If a US tank platoon (+ supporting elements) using Abrams finds itself facing a Russian armored unit of similar size (also with its supporting elements), I think we’d still be fine.
That being said, we need to upgrade to keep that edge.
Who would have thought tactics matter
man, russian bot still have the audacity to say this blatantly wrong shit. shame
@@josephmcguire8566 anybody with brains. Apparently Russia seems to possess too few of those.
One of the biggest things missing from your writings is the major role Apaches and other aircraft will play. Russia has proven they don't know how to integrate the three together.
Man, that introduction to your sponsor was pure finesse. I didn't even realise I was being advertised to for a good 15 seconds.
It is literally the heaviest, most well armored tank in the world and the gun is nothing to sneeze at. The best job I ever had.
Not really the leopard2A7 exceeds it
As an Ex-tanker, yeah, we had to learn a LOT. Even after a 16 week OSUT, we trained literally every day that we weren't forced to do paperwork, for months, before we would even do a course.
what was the toughest aspect of the training
@@theobvious1958 Dealing with the thievery. The rest of it I was ready for. Getting my shit stolen all the time lead to getting punished a lot.
@@BlueStarr86 serios?
@@theobvious1958 That was my biggest issue, yes, but I had also spent the better part of a year thinking about what I was getting myself into and I asked a lot of people a lot of questions. I also had significant memory issues back then. Also, a lot of the people in my training unit were guys who were told by a judge they can join the military or go to jail. If you're looking to go in, mark EVERYTHING as yours, leave nothing unattended, and give no one anything.
That enter into sponsor section was so clean i couldn't skip it.
Russia has lost something like 500+ tanks to Ukraine. Either because the Russian tanks were destroyed or because the Russian tanks were abandoned even though fully operational.
I don't think the US or NATO have much to fear if this is the best Russian tank crews can do.
Russia is losing against a country with 10 times less forces and old rusty left-over soviet weapons. If Russia ever fought against modern NATO forces, Russia's military would be completely destroyed in a single day.
I agree, then again if they were the ones being invaded I don't think the Russians would abandon anything.Their army is less professional for sure, but I don't think they lack patriotism.
"No misfortune is worse than underestimating the enemy. Underestimating the enemy, I risk losing my treasure."
Laozi
Then there is the FEAR OF THE FARM TRACTOR & a front digger shovel. They can dig a hole so fast & then tow the tank into the hole & cover it over like it was never there. Tank can't get out so seed is planted and seasonal crop is raised. Tank crew suffocates.
Dont forget, .50 cal API - T and even 25MM can penetrate the T-72's hull....The armor on the russian tanks doesnt even compare to the Abrams. where is the russians modern ground Moskva...the T-14 Armada...oh wait, still in the motorpool trying to start since its lacking electrical functionality....
I'm more worried about javelins getting reverse engineered when this is all over. With the amount that are floating around it's pretty guaranteed that some will end up in the wrong hands.
The Russians have already captured a LOT of them already. They would be working on defences against them as well as copying the best features of them. It will be interesting to see how long this takes and how long before they are deployed.
@@achillies40 LOl No they haven't. Why do you persist with bullshit and mis-information? Post your proof that Russia has lots of them.. I'll wait!!!!!!
Yeah, but then us regular folk will be able to get knock off javelins on eBay for just a quarter of the original price
That means you and I could have four shitty knock off javelins for every one good American made javelin we have now
That's something
@@dbz5808 I hope so. I could use a few of them......for home defence of course.
@@achillies40 Of course ;-)
The first prototype of the M1A2 hit the proving grounds to be tested in late 1991/ early 1992. It wasn't approved until 1992. I know this because I was on it and tested it at the Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona. An experienced crew can shoot, move properly and stay below the line of sight in hilly terrain. You learn with time and good training, how to effectively maneuver and fight a tank. It is an art, and skill.
M60A3 and M1A1 Master Gunner here. You really need to get hold of Hunnicutt's "Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank Vol. 2." It will challenge a lot of your preconceived notions of the M1, starting with it having any relationship with the MBT 70. The only thing the M1 has in common with the MBT 70 was the desire to field a new main battle tank. The M60A2 had more in common with the MBT 70 than did the M1, at least it shared ancestry with the maingun.
My experience with other Nato units was with Germans- whose grunts were drafteea obeying authority, and Canadians, who acted more like serious tactical professionals with a touch of mercenary attitude.I would feel a lot safer with the Canadians on my flank
Canadian Soldiers really are more professional actual soldiers. Yhe majority of them have wanted to be soldiers their whole lives and they go about it in a very British upper class kind of way due to the influence of British military traditions for so long
German military is not really interested in doing their job. I don't know how it was 30 years ago but today it's unimaginable for them to go to war.
There is no draft or mandatory service in Germany today. So it may be different now
Dude your research and knowledge is top notch. Your Delivery is excellent for a army guy.
Wasn’t the key to success for the m1 abrams was it’s ability to accurately hit targets while moving? Main reason why it was so effective against the Russian tanks in the gulf war?
The war where youngest tanks were technologically nearly 20 years old?
In that war, it wasn't really the fact the tanks could fire on the move, but rather that it had an incredibly big targeting and range advantage over it's adversaries.
The Abrams could easily aquire targets serval kilometers away while it's enemies were stuck with optical systems. The fire control meant the first shot was most likely a hit, and because of the way the Russian tanks have a central autoloader, a kill.
Target acquisition still remains the best characteristic of the Abrams and one key aspect that must be further improved as fast moving and quick acting infantry get access to the means of eliminating tanks from ranges usually reserved for vehicles.
@@mobiuscoreindustries Especially when the only way to look around for commander was to use binoculars, Abrams didn't get commander panoramic sight until A2 model in '95(which is still better than most T-72, but still bad in comparsion with Leopard2)
gulf war was mainly about FCS. Sandstorms where Abrams had thermals and better engagement ranghes while iraqi T72s were downgraded export models.
@@mobiuscoreindustries thanks for the reply.
The French were able to make a tank that used an auto loading main gun while also storing ammo in a blastdoor-sealed compartment. If we want "next generation" we should just be using that with Trophy active-protection-systems, the best sighting systems we can develop, and avoiding slapping too much steel around the hull to weigh the tank down.
But you know Leclerc still has ammo in chassis?
@@matt_pigeonowsky So does M1. The current move to bustle autoloaders (Or semi-autoloaders in the case of Merkava) in Western tanks (See also Type 90, Type 10, K2) seems to be the most advantageous in terms of ammunition separation. I was honestly stunned when Challenger 3 was announced to have a three-man turret crew with a manual loader.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Ammo in M1 is fully separated, thats the difference
That sponsorship transition was smoooth
Given the cost of these tiny drones I think a modern tank needs basically a fleet of small, covert drones with tiny laser targeting pods alongside their cameras to provide targeting data back for a set of javelin launch tubes or perhaps an automatic mortar system. Being able to hide entirely and still strike targets on the other side of buildings and have complete situational awareness would be major. Drones can simply fly back and land in a soft collection box or something to be brought back inside for recharging.
That’s a great idea. Wanna get into the war business with me? Launching javelins from the next block over the top of buildings sounds amazing!
@@goranjosic laser targeting....a laser pen that blinks the right speed would do the trick
Still a great tank. It was over-spec'ed back when first made, so it has always stayed relevant with just small updates (compared to the updates made to similar tanks).
Dude that add transition was so smooth i didnt realize it was an add until it was over omg
Fun Fact: The gas turbine engine in the Abrams was developed from the engine that was in the original Chrysler Gas Turbine car of the late 60's.
that’s rad
I thought it was developed for a helicopter?
@@trevortrevortsr2 There may have been a development fork of it that broke off to become a helicopter engine, but origin of the Abrams engine is the engine from the Ghia bodied Chrysler Gas Turbine Car of the late 60's.
Thank you! I think flex fuels turbine engines can operate in high arctic conditions that would challenge a diesel.
@@lupercal78 Leno is apolitical, but there’s something to be said about American Engineering when you have a car with a gas turbine in it.
I don't think you can reach a firm conclusion about the effectiveness of Abrams until more is known about the details of the tank losses on both sides in the current conflict. I have seen quite a few cases where the tank has driven out of its track and then been burned or exploded. This implies it was immobilized by mechanical breakdown, non-fatal ATW hit, or detonated an AT mine before the final fire/explosion. There are also cases where the tank has become stuck in the soft ground and then subsequently destroyed. There are a lot of cases where the circumstances of the loss are unclear.
Knowing how many of the tanks were destroyed by their own crews or hit with ATGMs after they were abandoned is a key part of the overall picture.
The Abrams is 20T heavier than the T90. Even if the ground pressure is the same, the extra 20T adds to the difficulty of recovery. Mines are a cheap and effective way of immobilizing tanks. They are particularly effective when the ground is sodden and tanks are restricted to roads and obvious lines of advance.
On open dry ground, the Abrams will excel but the conditions in Ukraine are not ideal for any tank. The Abrams advantages might be reduced to simply enhanced crew protection.
the US has the resources and machines to recover pretty much anything in their arsenal, while it seems Russia is just throwing it's old obsolete cold war tanks away. something no NATO country would ever consider
@@mayhem3649Damaged equipment behind the lines will be recovered but recovering equipment in the battle zone risks compounding losses. Recovery vehicles are just as, or more, prone to destruction from mines, ATGMs and direct fire. Tank repair teams are highly trained specialists that are no more expendable than the tank crews.
If a tank must be abandoned the tactical situation will determine whether it must be destroyed to prevent it from being used by the enemy. Every trained crew has a procedure for destroying equipment that must be abandoned.
A "big war" consumes vast amounts of equipment on both sides regardless of who is "winning", and who is "losing"
That's us @ 9:05 in Lithuania. that clamshell was the only source of heat while in the motorpool.
Russia did continue to upgrade the armor on their tanks even when the Abrams had the 105mm. The T-72a (which had improved armor over previous models) entered service about the same time as the Abrams. Further, crew survivability is still important to Russia. They didn't design their vehicles at the detriment to the crew. They just had a different approach to it. By making tanks smaller, Russia could decrease the target profit, and armor the tank more for the same weight compared to bigger tanks. That was seen as a better approach than other solutions.
The ammo storage issue from the Soviets and Russians continue to be a problem. They could have selected an auto loader that did not have that issue and have protected ammo like the West does, but they chose not to.
@@ricardoospina5970 the autoloaders used in western tanks like Leclerc have the problem of size. It gives the tank a much larger profile due to it being in the turret. Putting it in the hull allows the turret to be smaller. Also, the autoloaders do have spall protection armor around them. They are not blowout panels, but they do offer some protection.
at that time the doctrine was also still kinda relevant too. Fire control systems werent as advanced as today and having a smaller target to shoot at would make accurate shots actually a lot harder. nowadays its not relevant anymore as FCS can hit a tank sized target at more than 2-3km away. However more modern MBTs like the Type10, Leclerc and K2 have switched to (Cassette style) Autoloaders for decreased weight and ease of future upgrades to larger guns which human loaders couldnt handle the shells of.
@@Yung_pindakaas a smaller vehicle still had advantages. It will make the vehicle lighter, which helps mobility and armor protection. Also, the vehicle can use terrain features as cover better. A shorter tank is easier to hide.
@@ethandertz1160 There are major drawbacks to their designed size. Even modern examples aren't "regular people" intended. The shortest folks in the army get put into the tanks because the Russian designed tanks are too small for regular people. A tight space wears more on a crew and introduces fatigue earlier. Also, they didn't really upgrade the armor within the hull. There wasn't really room for that. The Soviets/Russians instead applied armor to the OUTSIDE of the hull in the form of add-on steel plates and later, ERA panels. The smaller size also means they're limited on the size of power pack. This means that the smaller, lighter Russian tank also has a smaller, weaker engine. You'll see on the Abrams and Leopards that while they're heavier, their larger and much more powerful engines means that they still have a better HP:ton than almost any Russian tank. The other major drawback of the Soviet/Russian design is that their very short stature for their tank works against them mechanically. The very short space between turret and hull means that Soviet/Russian tanks have absolutely terrible gun depression. This means that prepared fighting positions for their tanks are much longer and shallower because the gun can't aim down very low at all. This means that the shooting/peaking strategy that Western tanks employ in their dugout defensive positions are very difficult to nearly impossible for Soviet/Russian tanks. To top this off, Soviet/Russian tanks also have very small gearboxes. This has resulted in the hilarious side effect of have very few reverse gears on a Russian tank. This means that even if they dig a proper defensive firing pit for their tank, the tank backs up extremely slowly which with the shallow angle of the pit means that the tank is left vulnerable for much longer. This is why the Iraqis just parked their tanks at the top of the fighting position and kept the tank in a hull-down position. It'd take forever to backup and the requirement for a pretty much flat top means that the tanks were vulnerable for much longer moving forward/backwards as was tradition for many Western tankers exploiting elevated terrain.
One thing I think you didn't cover is maintenance processes.
The M1 might break down more. It almost definitely does, but the US maintains their equipment to a much higher standard, and repairs it much more efficiently.
If Russia had M1s, it's likely they would never actually get to the fight. They would be broken down, and out of fuel, in a random field somewhere. Long before Ukraine got a chance to shoot at them.
Former member of 1st tanks division (H&S motor pool) the tanks that got sent back mostly due to prolonged exposure to dust, much like the helicopters they weren't designed with sand fatigue in mind and it would jack up the engine. 1st tier repairs (replacing tracks and other minor repairs) done by the crew, 2nd tier (think replacing parts on the engine) done by the mechanics section, 3rd tier (engine swaps and other repairs that expose classified items) done by contractors from the manufacturer. It was cheaper and more time efficient to ship back tier 3 repairs to the states and replace with existing units on ship then to ship the parts and expensive contractors to a war zone
I agree the optics give the Abrams substantially more protection against modern infantry anti-tank weapons than their Russian equivalents by substantially increasing the crew awareness of their surroundings. However this can only reduce the chances it will get taken out by an infantry anti-tank weapon. Latest Abrams M1A2 Sep V3 also has trophy active protection system which I am surprised you did not mention. This intercepts missiles in flight so they don't hit the tank. Israel who makes it has already had a situation where a tank was saved by trophy aps when it intercepted a Kornet atgm like the one you said Russia uses in the video. So Russian infantry could not even take out a M1A2 Abrams Sep V3 with one shot with their anti tank weapons as it would take multiple shots to deplete trophy. As Russian infantry would not get the chance to launch more than one shot as Abrams M1A2 Sep V3 would either blow them up after they fired at it or the tanks escort would shoot at them. So Russian infantry can't take out Sep V3 although there is only a limited amount of this Abrams variant in service. Active protection systems like trophy are the future and they will protect tanks from the modern anti-tank weapons that can easily take out most tanks today. The next US tank OMT or optionally manned tank will have aps as standard and be like T-14 Armata except it will actually be used and produced in numbers.
optics dont give protection. They give better situational awareness. The T-14 Armada itself is garbage and has been since the rumored introduction of the tank. It had and still has electrical issues within the vehicle. running the tank as a 2 man crew is also a bad thing. a full four man crew is the way to go.
@@CCM1199 Fica quieto doido slc, mais ou menos não importa a doutrina russa e lançar múltiplas colunas blindadas, a americana e diferente, Além do mais quem falou que o T-14 e um lixo? Não viu combate ainda então não podemos ter afirmações bostas que nem essas, Além do mais o EUA nem começou a produzir essa versão o suficiente sendo a maioria M1A2B ou C.
Tank survivability depends on robust combined arms. Optics and active protection systems only help, without mutual support and security from Infantry, there is only so much you can do. The RU problems are with terrible execution of Combined Arms, and operating in a country they've made completely toxic to themselves--not with any glaring problem with the T-series tanks. They've poisoned their own well with the Ukrainian population.
You dont need infantry to secure the tank. The TC and loader can do that that all by themselves. There is a reason they split the sectors of fire on top of the turret. Loaders sector of fire is back left rear side of tank to front right side of tank as the TC's is opposite (right rear to front left). The crew serve weapons on top of the tank act as both a area suppression with M240 and precision weapon with CROWs .50 Cal. If it had the flext mount for the .50 cal it also becomes an area suppression weapon. both weapons also act as a deterrent to Air threats (i.e. helicopters and fixed wing flying at or close to the tank). The tank and its crew never relied on the infantry for anything and the same goes for the scouts.
@@cases2939 You dont need infantry to secure the tank. The TC and loader can do that that all by themselves. There is a reason they split the sectors of fire on top of the turret. Loaders sector of fire is back left rear side of tank to front right side of tank as the TC's is opposite (right rear to front left). The crew serve weapons on top of the tank act as both a area suppression with M240 and precision weapon with CROWs .50 Cal. If it had the flext mount for the .50 cal it also becomes an area suppression weapon. both weapons also act as a deterrent to Air threats (i.e. helicopters and fixed wing flying at or close to the tank). The tank and its crew never relied on the infantry for anything and the same goes for the scouts.