Royal Marine Reacts To America's New Tank is Legitimately Insane
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- ==========CHECK OUT MORALE==========
Website: drinkmorale.co...
Join the community: / discord
Instagram: / drinkmorale
TikTok: / drinkmorale
Twitter/X: x.com/DrinkMorale
======================================
Original Video (America's New Tank is Legitimately Insane)
• America's New Tank is ...
OTHER CHANNELS
►OriginalPagan: / @originalpagan
►OriginalAdventures: / @originaladventures2728
►Dreadnought Meadery: www.youtube.com/ @DreadnoughtMeadery
SOCIALS
►Instagram / originalhuman_
►Twitter: / originalhuman_
►Discord: / discord
►Facebook: / originalhuman.videos
►Business inquires: originalhumanbusiness@gmail.com
BECOME A MEMBER
/ @originalhuman
MY EQUIPMENT:
Camera: amzn.to/3W9dL37
Lights: amzn.to/3JtLflf
Key Board: amzn.to/3JpPWwx
Headphones: amzn.to/3JrF15x
Mouse: amzn.to/49P81ij
Monitors: amzn.to/4aLd1FP
Mic: amzn.to/3U7XWXY
Audio mixer: amzn.to/4b2FJSr
StreamDeck: amzn.to/4b4lHH1
Favorite Books:
Norse Mythology: Neil Gaiman: amzn.to/4b24Ftc
The Way of Kings: Brandon Sanderson: amzn.to/3JyHIlu
Breath: James Nestor: amzn.to/3Jur9Y7
We Are Nature: Ray Mears: amzn.to/3JurhXB
The Last Kingdom: Bernard Cornwell: amzn.to/3w4JjN0
A little fun fact about the US and Morocco is that they share a treaty of friendship, the longest unbroken treaty in the US. They were also I believe the first country to recognize the US as a country in 1777
Right after England grudgingly left.
I think Spain was the first to officially recognized them as their own Nation Morocco was the first to make a treaty with us though.
spain was deffinatly the first country to recognize them as a nation after the whole pirate boat knapping incident but morocco has the longest standing treaty with the us essentially from that same incident
All due to the US winning a small squabble with GB…
1792 during the Barbary Wars
I hear the E is because it’s still a prototype. Once it’s complete it will be called the M1A3.
Poland uses both the Leopard 2 and the Abrams.
Yea the E is for experimental. Once it’s adopted it becomes A designation
Yes the “E” is for Experimental
I thot it was the electric designator!
Just a friendly heads up. The E stands for electronic. X is the US Army designation for experimental weapons. Same as the new infantry rifle having the XM7 designation.
*Edit. I was mistaken in that E and X/XM designations are both experimental.
@@KTdaDon2no. An E is for an experimental variant. All modern vehicles have electronics, but none are "E" as a formal variant, so i don't know where you're trying to go with this.
When they say "remote turret' they don't mean from someone 200 miles away. It would be operated by the gunner in the tank. But they would be in the hull and not in the turret
In battlefields where airspace is heavily contested from anti-aircraft systems, tanks will always have a home.
Amen
But the question is are tanks good enough to resist anti tank infantry weapons. This is a new race between tank armor and weapons
@@christianmoore7932 the fact that infantry need AT weapons is proof of why tanks are important. There have always been AT weapons on the battlefield since there have been tanks. Nothing here is new.
The US need for tanks isn't influenced by AAA. Airspace isn't contested by AAA for the US. USAF/USN SEAD/DEAD is just too good. Tanks exist to provide mobile direct fire support for the guys on the ground. Even if you can dominate the skies, like for example in Israel/Palestine, it doesn't mean you can forgo ground fires for infantry support.
What we see in Ukraine now is cavalry going against the 1861 Gatling. The future is that same cavalry going against the Vickers.
There will be no such thing as air superiority in how we think of it today during the opening phases of future wars in which drones are used. We (the US) and our adversaries plan on using swarm attacks, imagine hundreds of drones looking for targets. We will have to wait until stockpiles dwindle.
The tank is great at what it does so it is not obsolete in that sense. What the real problem is, is that tanks will become cost ineffective. We can send a swarm of 200 of the cheapest drones at a T72 and the total cost of the drones is still cheaper. We can send 500 and the T72 is still more than twice as expensive. The T72 is pretty cheap to produce.
Swarm attacks are meant to overwhelm and drones will take this to the next level. Not even infantry is safe, the DOD commissioned studies on the psychological and physical effects of fighting underground since they see a future in which infantry moves through sewers and other underground structures to avoid drones.
tanks are not obsolete. Our tank tactics are obsolete
OUR TANK TACTICS ARENT BEING USED IN UKRAINE....OUR TACTICS ARE FINE! THE M1A1's we sent to Ukraine have ZERO ARMOR on them! They even took out the Depleted Uranium Armor and Spald liner! They took out ALL TECHNOLOGY RUSSIA CAN USE !
@@Cody38Super go cry looser
Tell that to the FPV drone pilots in Ukraine and Russia.
@@BearNecessities-X because they are using old tactics and trying to adapt on the fly. New main battle tanks with have answers for drones. Jammers built in and 20-30 mm guns to take them down. You can’t just add that shit on the fly.
I remember being in the mojave for a month long training exercise and seeing a company of paladins and Abrams roll by outside the wire in the dead of night. There's nothing quite like it, and I can only imagine how demoralizing it must be for enemy infantry to see that rolling over the horizon.
Okay, former weapons repair guy here, so this is what I remember...
An "X" is an experimental weapon, a NEW weapon, like the XM-8.
The "E" is for proposed modification to an existing platform. These have NOT been approved, USUALLY. When two weapons share a designation, like the M60 tank and M60 machine gun, the tank will get A1 while the machine gun get E1.
"A" is used for a finalized change to a platform.
Additionally,
"B" is used for supplemental improvements that don't merit a full re-egineering. M1151A1B1, for example, designates additional armor added to the base armored variant, M1151A1, of the base model truck, the M1151.
There are also R1 designations, meaning rebuilt from the ground up with "new" components from an older version where certain parts are no longer used. Example would be the M1097R1, a rebuilt base model HMMWV (M998) redone as a heavy a heavy variant to extend its service life- using A2 HMMWV parts and able to carry modern equipment.
XM and E when talking about a military vehicle or weapon tends to mean "experimental" like the first version of the M16 the US adopted and fielded was the XM16E1.
I only know this from playing World of Tanks lol
3:30 the US has the most powerful naval force in the world if they want a tank somewhere it will get there
I've seen and heard things about how the Maritime Command isn't in the best shape right now, though I acknowledge the sources could have been talking out of their asses because they looked at available data without correct context.
Still, if the US has been stingy with budget money to ensure its transportation capabilities are always at peak performance, suddenly having to get additional armour & supplies to a foreign battlefield because things have kicked off with Russia or China could be a bigger issue that desired.
lol, you must have forgotten how much equipment we shipped over to Iraq for the Gulf war. We have no problem getting tanks where they need to be.
that was my thought exactly. Or go back to WW2, when we not only supplied our own Military but every ally. Some of the things he says come completely out of left field.
I think the problem is when its not a long running insurgency without an airforce, but in theoretical war with a near-peer, that suddenly broke out and the US had to transport hundreds of tanks while hostile submarines and ground launched long range missiles targets the harbors and transport networks.
@@gawkthimm6030 They are talking about when we fought Iraq in 1991. No current enemy has the capabilities you stated.
If we have uncrewed F16's already in the air, and predator drones with hellfire missiles - not a huge stretch to imagine UGV's to include tanks in the future.
Not a ton of countries use the M1. It's super expensive and requires a lot of logistics and parts to support its operations. Iraq got M1's after we absolutely rocked them in the gulf war when they were still using soviet tanks
Thats why most countrys buy Leopard 2.
And abrams shit, and leopard shit
@@АлексейАлексеевич-м8кThe irony that the Abrams is now a 60 year old design, yet it's still one of the top tanks in the world.
I want to recommend reacting to The M1 Abrams Scandal by Spookston for additional Abrams lore.
Spookston would be a fun channel for him to look at for more tank/vehicle content
Agree especially when he has a lot of useful tank information including the Eugene Stoner Interview
Yeah I’ll vouch for spookston. Love that dude
To be fair, we have been sending Ukraine older and discontinued equipment and systems...that includes tanks. They received older versions. Basically, we have done nothing more than dip into our junk drawer.
Words of real looser
And yet Russia lovers can't get their head around that fact, and pretend like this is current US technology. Most of the tech sent were introduced before most people were even born.
Also, like with the HAWK air defense missiles, it is actually cheaper to give them to Ukraine to shoot than it is to pay to have them de-weaponized (I believe the cost for the Hawk is $40,000 per missile to junk them)
Ppl have been saying tanks were obsolete since before world war II, then the next war happens and we are flying our tanks around the world. We flew them to the Gulf, nam, Korea etc. if we fight China tomorrow it will probably be in Taiwan the Philippines maybe Korea and our tanks would be utilized heavily there as well.
Omerican your country was pissed up in all this counties, shut up
M1 operators right now:
Morocco, Egypt, Poland, Australia, Iraq, Kuwait, USA, and Ukraine
Operators in the future with orders: Romania, Bahrain and Taiwan
Weird situation: South Korea’s K1 is based on the M1 as a starting point but has lots of changes and is 100% its own thing. Pretty similar situation to Japan’s F-2 & the F-16.
The US wouldn't need to "get tanks over there," at least not initially. The tanks and everything that goes with an armored brigade would come from the nearest US Army regional APS which are stationed all over the world. For example if a ground war suddenly kicked off say between Israel and Iran, the US wouldn't need to wait weeks or months to get involved. The US Army could mobilize an entire armored brigade from the Kuwait APS in a matter of a few days while additional resources get flown/shipped in from the US or other nearby stockpiles. Wendover did a nice video that explains this called US Military's Massive Global Transportation System or something like that a couple years back.
Actually, the Army had the Shillelagh Missile in the 1960s. It was deployed on the M60A3 and the M551 Sheridan. Launched from a short barreled 152mm gun.
And then we’re gonna have this tank in service for the next 30-40 years, and every decade we’re gonna have a new kit to install on it and make it heavier and heavier until we’ve spent enough defense dollars and cancelled enough projects to finally figure out what tank we want to replace it with…bureaucrats
That's every weapon ever, thats every tactic ever. Everything is iterative they change over time to suit new situations and technology.
In America we had labor day (paid holiday for most) this monday so to me today feels like a Thursday. I was a little bummed when he started hyping up friday, but now that i realized it's actually friday im pretty hyped!
Remote control means that no one sits in the tower but all crew members all sit in the hull. The tower is controlled from there.
The demonstrator model of this tank was first shown in action during 2022. It was built before the war in Ukraine ever started. They may have added or changed some things since the war began.
The M1 tanks that America exports does not have the same kit as what we use. The version sent to Ukraine is from like 1991. The F-16 that America allowed to be sent are block 20 from the 1980's. Yes the country that donated them strapped some newer sensors under the wings. That does not make them block 70. Also the Abrams that Ukraine was given runs on diesel the US version runs on JP 8 (low grade jet fuel).
M1A1 is essentially a different tank than what the US Army uses. The USA uses the M1A2(which has its own upgrade packages).
We have stuck a roll of TP on the front of the round. Worked best with the HEAT round. Flaming torch at 1500 meters per second. The coke can whistled like crazy. Loud.
Tanks worked in Desert Storm and no matter the war. To win a war you have to occupy the territory. You can't just send in men to occupy it, you need the tanks. The designation of M1-E3 the E stands for experimental. Once it's in production it will be changed to A3 or whatever.
If I remember correctly, I think I heard Cap talking about the Task & Purpose team in a video. It’s literally him and one other person. It’s either his sister or his wife who does a lot of the editing.
Tanks, will never be obsolete. While battles may be won with, or along with airpower. Aircraft cannot occupy an AO.
The M1 Abrams is a limited share weapon. Countries must take on the training in America, provide the personnel for training and mechanical teams, and also accept that there are American handlers and observers that come with the equipment.
Tank are more vulnerable. They are however very effective in bringing mobile firepower. AIR Superiority is a must with tanks, always has been.
The E in M1E3 stands for Experimental. If it gets adopted into service it will become the M1A3.
Israel has their Merkava, Germany has the Leopard, France has the LaClerc, Britain the Challenger, Korea has the Panther, Japan has the type 10 and Swedan has the Stridzvagn 122.
Abrams have never had a loss in combat until the ones shipped to Ukraine
That's not true, there were some destroyed in Iraq, both in US service and later in Iraqi army service against ISIS. The US didn't loose many though, and the Iraqi army fighting them at the time got annihilated.
I thought it was all friendly fire incidents, no?
American Abrams have never lost a fight against other vehicles, but Abrams have definitely been lost in combat before.
Egypt disagrees with you guy 😂love the abrams but it was totaled by that coronet missile
@@cesar88ml The US tends not to export the Abrams versions with the secret advanced armor. Our export versions have much less effective armor systems. This is to prevent the (generally corrupt) buyers from turning around and reselling the secrets to the Russians or Chinese.
Many thinks the future is all high tech space based or other non- ground weapons.
But, reality still demands control of ground areas to win any conflict.
As long as that is true infantry will be required and as long as infantry are involved, tanks and artillery will be needed to protect infantry and establish control over any ground area.
Until the grunts occupy it, you don’t control it.
yeah, i think we've adapted to assymetric warfare, which doesnt' necessarily make tanks useful. But Near peer wars will be using armored formations. this war against terror made it where we've been blinded by our current situation, that we've effectively forgotten about other countries
I don't know if he understands what they mean by the remote controlled aspect of the turret. The person controlling the turret will still be in the tank as one of the crew. They just don't need to be in the turret. Also there will still likely be a wired connection to the turret and the gunner, if I were to guess.
Chris apparently forgot about or didn't see anything on the Shillelagh atgm that went into service in the 1960s for use by the m551 Sheridan light tank. It was fired through the main gun, although very few were used in combat in the 20 or 30 years in service, I believe because it wasn't very reliable and the Sheridan itself wasn't great
It required such a large diameter bore on the gun that, when firing normal tank gun rounds, it was restricted to relatively inaccurate, low velocity high explosive rounds. It didn't help that it's aluminum armor could actually be penetrated by small arms fire (it was just a tank-shaped scout/fire support vehicle light enough to be para dropped).
Reduce engine size by hybridization, use that space for drone launchers. Design an AEGIS-like system w 'flak shotguns' for anti UAV duties. Reintroduce 4th occupant as UAV operator. I like the remote turret, ATGM upgrades. Also add ground drones as scouts and anchor points in case tank gets stuck. Add winches to the drivetrain. When I get my patent I will explain.
so essentially you want to go for the Rheinmetall approach
1. Use Lynx (or Puma) infantry fighting vehicle with active protection, and 30mm air burst muntion calibre, plus sensors to detect drones and guidance systems (so the IFVs double as Flakpanzer akin to the Gepard, with 4 km range air burst munition in machine cannons), with SPIKE missiles that can also engage both low flying targets like helicopters and also armor plus .50Cal
2. Use Panther tanks with active protection, with the new autoloader, so the fourth person in the tank becomes available for other tasks, e.g. operating loitering munitions or unmanned ground vehicles, add HERO-120 loitering munitions launchers to the tank beside its 130mm cannon plus .50Cal
3. augment the force with Mission Master ground drones as weapons carriers and scouts
Together you have organic shorad and organic loitering attack munitions, organic air based and ground based unmanned reconaissance and effectors
@@WilhelmEley-s3y that would work, I think! Sounds good anyway and doesn't surprise me that someone else thought of it before me! I'm just a truck driver!
Remote control of the turret is from the crew compartment not some guy with an RC radio.
Some of our fighter aircraft have guns which automatically line up with where the pilot is looking. It tracks the eyes of the pilots. What if the turret were to do the same?
Might not be fast enough. But imagine if the canon fired guided missiles followed the gunners eyes.
28:30 no no the gap between the equipment is still there and still large. The feeling capability that we are seeing right now is they all tanks are vulnerable to first person view drone weapon strikes because they are small fast and able to carry a shaped charge. Play the task and purpose guy said the exposed exhaust and cooling system is a major failing point
A few years ago, the military budget had almost nothing for tanks and tripled up on money for Apaches. That’s where their head was. And I will say that a dozen tanks hearing that a single Apache is coming their way will make them question their MOS. Also, the two tanks they’ve got in Taiwan are probably sitting in front of the gates of the Navy seal and Green Beret bases…. Just say’n
We've gotten so used to an air superiority war that we're always going to need slobber knockers
... main cannon fired missiles have been around for ages, most abrams precursers had them even
in terms of soviet and ruzzian tank's features, i would say "good in concept, poor in execution".
also by "remote controlled turret" they mean a person inside the tank's hull controlling the turret via an electrical connection or something like that
In the words of The Chieftain, tanks will always be around when you need something to kill another tank.
He keeps using the Abrams X as a visual. The Abrams X is not the prospective M1E3, it was a sales pitch. There aren't any details, let alone visuals, on the M1E3 except design goals
Oh ok so the E3 designation is for testing purposes and will be A3 when it goes operational
The remote-control turret is controlled by the gunner who sits in the hull. It doesn't mean that it's controlled by somebody not in the tank.
The E in M1E3 The E stands for “engineering,” meaning the tank will receive an engineering change. The A in M1A2 denotes a standardized variant.
US makes Abrams and we lease/ sell them to allies. Usually they are an older version of the modern version the US uses, and we sent some of the slightly dumbed down version to Ukraine last year. It always surprises me how many people aren’t following the Ukraine war, it’s really important. Additionally, they are extremely good gear, but aren’t usually that useful for foreign countries because they require A LOT of maintenance. I believe (could totally be wrong) that one of the only places who can properly maintain them is in Germany because of the large US military presence. Lastly, I believe remote controlled turret is just someone in the tank firing it; I am pretty sure that currently the turret on the outside requires a person to man it with the hatch of the tank open, a remote controlled turret would eliminate personnel needing to come out of the tank to fire it.
When theu say remote turret i dont think theh mean remote as in drones controled from elsewhere, i think the remote theh are talking about os controled from inside the tank. This pevents jamming etc from heing an issue while keeping the crew safe with new visuals that do not require someone to stick their head out of a hatch to man a 50 cal machine gun. The other type of remote is likely tracking, like the top mount gun being able to auto track and engage drones or maybe missles.
When the M1A1 was designed, accuracy for various attacks that might get a top shot on a tank was much lower than it is now.
We sent them the old Abrams, the M1 A1. We have the M1 A2, which we did not send to Ukraine.
Keep in mind there are multiple versions of Based on armor composition
We dont sell the DU composite
Tanks now days are still a huge asset. Like battleships they need support on the current battlefield
The US military is a logistics organization that dabbles in combat.
We can have boots and armor on the ground anywhere in the world in 72 hours or less.
but cant have it in Russia,Iran,China,Houthies.90% of US navy would be sunk from 8000km away by hypersonic missles but americans keep drinking your superriority kool aid😂😂
@mirkodizdar3700 Here's something I've learned from my time in the military. The US doesn't show off its toys. When you hear about something new, like, for example, the F-22 Raptor . The US has had it for years or even decades before you found out. Hint the F-22 Raptor first took flight on Sept. 7, 1997 in Marietta, Georgia.
Also, the US has multiple hypersonic missile systems. One is ground launched, and the other is air launched.
The recently unveiled Mako Hypersonic missile fits inside an F-22 or F-35.
So while China and Russia were bragging about their hypersonic missiles, which are actually transonic at best. The US was making hypersonic missiles fit in an F-22 Raptor.
Fact is China imitates US designs. They do the same with Russian designed weapons and equipment.
Like their new stealth bomber, the H-20. It in as advanced as the B2 stealth bomber. A bomber developed by the US in the 1970s that first flew on July 17, 1989. And was introduced in April 1997.
See how that goes ? Technologically speaking, it would surprise me if all the UFO sightings in the US are just Experimental US Aircraft.
Consider this fact the US developed the Internet, was the first country to put a man on the moon, developed ICBMs , invented Stealth Aircraft, was the first country to shoot down a satellite with a missile launched from a F-15. Created the first 5th and 6th generation Aircraft years before anyone even knew that was an option. With the NGAD program expected to field the new fighter aircraft in the 2030s. .
And on the ground of course there is the Abrams X which is everything the T-14 is pretending to be in a stealth Tank.
Basically if you know about it. It's old tech and the US is already a working on its replacement.
Oh and the US can actually shoot down Russia's Hypersonic missiles with Patriot missile defense systems made back in the 1970s. As Ukraine has shown.
And China might want to check the fuel in those " hypersonic missiles " of their's considering their nukes had water in them.
Also the US has shot down everything the Houthies have shot at US ships.
But of course before China or Russia touches America's boats, they might want to ask Japan how that turned out for them. Hint Japan went from the dominate military in the east to drawing anime.
As to the Houthies and Iran... Iran might want to remember what happened to them when they touched the boats. Operations Praying Mantis.
An Iranian undersea mine damaged the USS Samuel B. Roberts. Didn't even sink it. The US Navy a few days later took out Half of Iran's functional modern Navy in 8 hours of work.
Then there is the Minor issue for all of them of Rapid Dragon being used. Which is basically pallets of cruise missiles that can be dropped from cargo aircraft outside the range of any of their air defenses and hit them.
The US has over 4,000 cargo aircraft. Hence the logistical organization that dabbles in combat part.
Oh and the US has targeted Houthis well the US and UK have launched aurstrikes against them in Yemen. Guess how may US or UK bombers or fighters have been shot down . Answer 0. Now the Houthis have shot down a reaper drone.
@mirkodizdar3700 trust me, America has plenty of things that nobody knows about. Especially when it comes to defensive measures.
E = Experimental, as in not fully adopted yet. When it is It will become the A3
I think you owe him a beer and a steak dinner
The letter "E" in a tank designation indicates an experimental modification version.
And the "X" means a whole new type of system, rather than just a modification of an already existing one (the "E").
At a minimum tanks are needed for clean-up portion of war. (After military structure has fallen and gorilla warfare remains with scattered forces)
However, I don't like the idea of a 3 man crew. Should the crew be forced to exit tank and continue on foot, a 4 man team is much better. Should one team member be injured, 2 men can assist the injured man and move fast, while the 4th man suppress attacks.
There is also the fact that a 4-man crew makes fixing a thrown track, and other maintenance issues, much easier. I know that one of the major reasons for having a manual loader was that a well-trained human loader can reload the gun far faster than an auto-loader. Auto-loaders also tended to limit the ability to switch ammo types on the fly. I wonder if the new design has finally addressed these issues?
@@randlebrowne2048 good to know, my main claim of personal interaction with a tank, is me diving out of its way (after pitching my night stick at it, just before it ran over the gate shack... after complete failure of it steering occurred, as it turned onto base.
The usa uses a m1 but with different armor, that they dont put on the export version. Kinda like the f22 how other countries dont get it, they dont get the same armor package. And by remote control he means someone inside fires it from the hull and not in the turret. Some tanks already have that. Also fun fact the marines almost stoped using tanks, to the point they are using only a1m1s and not the new ones.
It’s the Tank Crew that really makes the Tank great, I was in an Armored Calvary Regiment in Germany for four years during the Cold War using both the M60A2-3 and then we starting receiving the M1A-1 in late 1979-1983 when I ETS’ed and then directly enlisted in the USMC for the next 30 years serving in both 1st MARDIV, ITB/School of Infantry, Chief Instructor and 2nd MARDIV with 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance where I served as the Battalion Master Gunner, Battalion Operations Chief and later 2nd MarDiv, G-3Training, so I can tell you Tanks were and are a vital asset to any company, Battalion, Regiment and Division CG and should never be given up like the USMC’s idiot Commandant decided he would gut from the Corps arsenal for a future lighter force which I KNOW was one of the most misguided, misunderstood and misinformed STUPID decision he made especially since the Corps has had Tanks since their existence and we used the expertly but by gutting them all his incompetent decision has did is weakens the Corps ability to properly support itself and all Four Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalions with the heavy Armored asset it will need to operate independently around the globe in those hostile country’s that have tanks. Now we’ll be forced to stand on the sideline and wait until the US Army Arrives with their Tanks, so no our military should never give up a single Tank that supports our ground Troops, the ones who have and always will win all future wars, just ask George Patton if Tanks are important, if he were still alive, lmao.
An autoloader takes 5 seconds to load the gun. A well trained loader can do it in 2
Instead of trying to look up a list of tanks by country, you can just go to the tanks page and go to Operators, and you can see the List of M1 Abrams users include the US, Australia, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan (only the first two delivered so far, but they have way more on order), and Ukraine. Future operators include Romania, and Bahrain. So 10 current countries, soon to be 12 (and yes, that's countries that own and operate their own Abrams, not just "There's a US Base with tanks")
The "E" in M1E3 means it's an experimental development. It's still a program being worked on. Eventually when it's ready to be issued to units, it'll be the M1A3. Unless the program produces some radically new enough hull design they realize it needs a new number all together... I personally have doubts they'll drop to a 3 man crew. The Army likes having the extra crew member for things like maintenance, security, other related tasks... though I suppose we could do what the French do, and have tankers in a HMMWV scout platoon attached to each tank platoon to still have those extra crew even with 3-crew autoloaded LeClerc... of course since the French do it that way, we won't do that lol
I'm pretty sure the M1A1 is almost all the USA. The other countries that have it most likely bought them from the US and dont manufacturers them. Saudi etc got them from us after the whole iraq war as part of the us commitment to defense. I didnt realize Ukraine had them but it make sense for the US to sell to them to both see how they perform and to stick a finger in russias eye
M-1E3 the E means experimental
If it was me, I would go the 130 mm Gun that the German Panther uses. It fires much farther and is even more accurate. It can out distance any tank on the battle field. Which means any tank crew armed with 130 mm Reinmettall Gun will kill every 120 mm and smaller tank gun on the battlefield in clear open terrain.
Basically since WW2 was so profitable for the war machine when it ended they needed to keep the money flowing. So you create the problem, you create the weapons, you use the weapons, you always need more. This drives the warpigs so they can profit from conflict. Hence the birth of forever wars.
As I recall from another AbramsX video, the remote control for the turret (including cannon and other guns and missiles) is controlled from beside the driver by a gunner and Tank commander, and all 3 crew members will sit side by side isolated in the lower hull. This allows them to concentrate the armor to the hull and have less armor in the turret and make the turret lower to decrease the tanks weight and profile. The 3 crew will supposedly be driver, gunner, and commander.
upside is improved survivability of the crew,
downside is it would become easier to disable the turret, and thus disarm the tank.
Did you know the Abrams doesnt have a symmetric turret cheeks
Damn Taiwan has the Abrams Sep V3 TUSK
I don't think tanks are obsolete, just outdated. Current tanks were designed for Tank on Tank warfare before the advent of Drones and modern atgms. New generation Tanks will be designed with modern threats in mind. Also new anti-drone platforms will inevitably come about thanks solely to the Ukraine war. Between new Anti-drone weaponry, Electronic warfare, passive and active anti-drone defenses i think it fair to say we'll see the effectiveness of FPV drones drop when faced with tech specifically designed to counter it.
Task & Purpose is a Magazine/Military News Publisher, so yes, there is a sizable team behind him.
But he also has the freedom to post about what he wants to.
There is the physical aspects of tanks. And there is also the tech that goes along with it. The technology will be used to throttle the capabilities, will be controlled by the US, based on interests.
14:18 FYI in future if you want to see what countries use a certain bit of kit, than you can just go to the wiki page for that piece of equipment and they put lists of the countries using it with a map showing them highlighted.
The one thing that should always be kept in mind is that when potential enemies (Russia and China) say they have this new thing and it does this this and this, the Pentagon gets busy to counter that. The reason the tech gap turns out to be so big is because Russia and China routinely lie about the capability of their new weapons. Because of the way their political systems work, nobody in the development chain ever tells the truth about test results. The Armata is the perfect example. The Russian tank the Americans were worried about doesn't even really exist beyond prototypes that are barely functional and depend on high tech parts from the West to be manufactured. Those parts are embargoed so no tanks are being made and none have shown up in Ukraine. Whenever new American weapons are being developed the media and politicians descend on them with relentless criticism until the thing works exactly as stated. Test results are published. That is the difference between democracy and totalitarianism. Truth wins.
The same thing happened when the Soviets lied about the Mig 25's capabilities: The Americans freaked out and made an *actual* super-fighter (F-15) to counter the overestimated figures. The result is an aircraft with a 100+ to zero kill/death ratio after 30+ years of service!
Might 25 is interceptor, the fastest battle plane and good, powerful machine, oh and f 15 shit@@randlebrowne2048
Electric drive scares me, it better not be an electric engine. Because you ain't charging that in the battlefield.
Batteries also tend to be very heavy. Electric drive systems also sound like they could be even more vulnerable to an EMP.
Electric drive just means that the engine will provide electrical power but the actual drive system will be electric motors. It's not even a new way of powering a tank, the Tiger from WW2 was the first tank to have an electric drive but electric motors were still in their infancy and trying to drive such heavy tank it burnt out the electric motors and caught fire when demonstrating it thus why big H went with the normal engine driven version.
Now days a common use is the Diesel Electric trains used globally.
@@SilvaDreams Hey thanks for the information. I have no problem being wrong. That makes sense through.
Former 19K here. This thing better have some exceptional drone defense or it's just a waste of money. Tanks are highly obsolete without infantry support imho. They are less of an invading force tool now and more of a movable defensive measure.
I think remotely operated, in this video, means controlling the gun via somewhere else in the tank, not outside of it.
Australia, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Poland, and Saudi Arabia all have the M-1 Abrams in their armies. And now Ukraine. Romania has ordered m-1s.
When it comes to national defense no type of weapon, meaning pistols rifles, helicopters, planes, tanks, "jeeps" are Never obsolete! They can be used God forbid our existing gets taken out. Tanks will always be necessary as long as there is a ground war with infantry.
I’m in poland too! Working with the polish on the tanks is pretty cool and I got to be in the polish tanks as well!
Most countys don't have heavy enough bridges and roads to support the massive weight.
NATO would not be on the ground like that. They would clear the battlefield from air and sea before sending tank's!
T&P just made a video of Chris going over his trauma of seeing someone die in combat. It's different from most of their stuff, but it's powerful. I'd love to see a reaction to it.
I'd rather have tanks and not need them than need tanks and not have them.
$24 million you get 1 tank upgrade or 100,000 new drones for the swarm.
US employs around eight thousand, while another two thousand are fielded by eight other nations.
You should look into the Israeli Merkava main battle tank as it not only carries 4 crew but up to 8 infantry aswell. Really clever concept for adaptability to different scenarios
I think that the Israelis traded both speed and range (mobility) for the ability to act more as mobile defense bunkers. Given how small the country is, they have relatively little need for speed and long travel distances; so, they opted for other advantages instead.
The US can't afford to optimize it's tanks so much for static defense; since they so often have to go on the offense in war.
@@randlebrowne2048 100 percent. A very specialized design based on their unique requirements. Prioritizing occupant protection highest on the list due to their limited number of troops, making it vital to reduce initial contact casualties. I still remember the chain balls dangling from the turret edges to attempt to misdirect rpg impacts aimed at the most vulnerable areas. Those had such an iconic look.
No country has the M1 tanks that the United States has. However countries have M1 export variants.
Let’s keep it 💯. You have US citizenship, but you’re not American. You’re a Brit and you’ll always be a Brit.
“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.”
@OriginalHuman i spent a good part of my younger life in the U.S. Army. Yes, tanks are very important to tank and hold land. Airplanes don't take or hold land, you need boots on the ground for that. Those boots need Armored Support and Artillery to be effective. You saying tanks aren't need anymore is a total fabrication and not the truth. I have been to combat on different occasions. Without tanks we wouldn't have won in Desert Storm 1 or 2. Maybe England fights wars without tanks, but please name a war England has won since WW2. Oh, that's right England hasn't won any war except the Falklands (captured some islands) LOL. I will state for the record: Just like in Ukraine without Armored Support (Tanks) no nation will beat another nation that is armed with them. You need armor; tanks, armored personnel carriers to take and hold land. Artillery is also needed.
FPV drones are knocking tanks out all over Ukraine and Russia. They are drone magnets, but If I had to have an armored vehicle in combat, I'd likely choose a Bradley IFV.
one thing that im curious about is consideration of doubling down the abrams' ability to communicate with other field assets
the US is already developing a missile with a relay system that can utilize an aircraft to fire a missile from outside it's own effective targeting range and allow another aircraft to guide it in. is it too much to suggest that the abrams getting a similar capability could be a good idea?
Yeah, those British tanks, I think, are the best performers so far, beating the Leopards!
There are ten countries that use Abrams, with potentially Romania and Bahrain in the future. Taiwan purchased 108 Abrams but the first two were documented to be delivered in 2022.
What's going on in Ukraine provides valuable info, but it is incomplete, for lack of a better word. Ukraine has limited air support. It's fighting in a very different way than the US would.
The "remote" turret is controlled by the crew in the tank.
We can air drop tanks out of a plane with more square footage than Ireland😂
Yeah, We are always fighting our last war. We are never looking to the future and that is why we lose things like tanks or things like jet planes that we need because you don’t need fighter jet or a battle to fight against somebody wearing a bedsheet. However, we forget there are larger armies larger countries out there that would love to have a piece of us North Korea in China come to mind. I’m keeping those things such as spider jets and Abrams tanks up-to-date that keeps those countries in check.
oh and i also want to throw out there... we downgraded the m1's we sent to the warzone. we took off our "top secret" armour and pretty much forced the ukrainians to put on added armour (reactive blocks...etc) so the m1's in ukraine will not be as good as they could be.
Ukraine (and most other countries we export to) are corrupt enough that there is always a danger that someone would line their own pockets by selling the secret stuff to Russia or China. That, or, given the realities of combat on the ground, there is far greater likelihood of an Abrams getting disabled or abandoned for the enemy to capture.
Liar, liar, omerican liar