Is M1 Abrams obsolete?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 гру 2018
- Today we take a look at M1 Abrams and we will see if it is really obsolete as some people may say.
Patreon: / redeffect
I no longer own the discord server. There is another one I made for Patreon supporters, if you want you can check it out.
Source is "M1 Abrams at War" by Michael Green - Авто та транспорт
People claim the Abrams is obsolete meanwhile the M2 Browning is still in service
A damn good machine gun tho
How is a 40 year old tank called old but not the 100 year old heavy machine gun.
@@shinobi0639 idk maybe becouse such a thing as "modern machine gun" doesn't really exist
It's a box that throws chunks of metal good
@@adonisparts1343 haram
its true that all the Abrams models pail in comparison to the glorious Bob semple tank
The bob semple sucks now the Big Bob is the future
TheTeremaster I agree
And the newest upgraded model the bob semple MBT
Bob Semple was the tank Messiah
@@sorepancake4284 now with a mortar on the back
>M1 Abrams is obsolete
>B-52 is still in service
Edit: THE SHITSTORM IS STILL GOING?
Edit 2: Shitstorm still going strong I see
How can you compare the two. Tu95 and b52 are old but execute the task of carrying and launching cruise missiles very well.
starburst
Design literally hasn’t changed much for 100+ years
Same thing with the M2HB
@@nworesistance9834 exactly the reason
starburst
I’m talking about how people say that theAbrams should be obsolete, yet there are literal dinosaur serving in the US Armed forces.
an we should keep it that way
If it an't broke... like the MX-8 system that was planned to replace the M-16/M-4 weapons, is it really worth replacing them with something that's not that much better taking into the account the huge costs of replacing any mass produced millitary weapon/war-machine?
(To be fair about the MX-8 system, it was almost introduced, but I thikn it was 9/11 that happened in the USA that I presume caused the US to just go to war with what they had at the time, and that was probably why they didn't go with the MX-8 (assault rifle/carbine) system that apparently was almost going to be introduced.
Similar to the British just before WW2 not upgrading to there bulpuped E-2 rifle that they had designed, but would it was thought be too costly to re-tool and re-issue the new weapon threwout the army, instead the British keeping there old .303 rifle and developing the much simpler Sten-gun submachine-gun, to keep-up with war time production needs.
I know a lot about tanks. i learned it in *war* *thunder*
I did learn a lot TBH
All I learnt from war thunder is that Stalium is the best material ever.
@M. Chairudin no
@M. Chairu well ya but I mean war thunder is a bit unique atm.
@M. Chairu its easy to advance if you actually win games
As soon as someone uses kills instead of casualties (which can include the wounded) or destroyed units, you know you met a badass navy seal that has 300 confirmed kills and access to the whole armoury of the US
do you mean a battlefield 4 player?
Definitely a badass navy seal force recon marine ranger delta space door gunner trooper who the mdeal of honor twice
@@CallsignYukiMizuki Also the only still active member of MACV SOG
@@julesb6816 or one of these kids that think they could use their war thunder strategies in real life
@@joseffliegl4167 or the autistic teens who only played HoI4 who caused 20M casualties againts the Allies.
Atleast play Vicky 2 or HoI3 to speak up lol
Lol it is not outdated lol 😂😁 obsolete. That’s funny.
It is, according to some internet "experts" ;)
Red have you watched Matsitnuses video on differnt apfsds amunition types? I think it would help explain the upper front plate on the abrams, it was designed to counter the song rod soviet shells of the time, somthing that it does very well even today, im nont an expert, and shells with better normalization can definetly punch through the upper plate, but these shells are not the most plentiful or prominent threat on the battle feild. China still uses long rod penetrators, and most soviet and russian expprt shells are aswell, Russia looks to be the only "hostile" nation that feilds shells to counter the insane sloping, and until they get their money situation together, the will likely not be the majority of amunition used.
Outdated is a pretty fair point though.
They'll probably squeeze another twenty years or so out of the Abrams.
The issue of abram is not so much about its capabilities but the cost. I mean in ww2 tiger is a good tank but its cost limited its number hence effectiveness
All of these people who clearly have experience in modern tank warfare thank you very much for sharing you knowledge with us because you’ve all clearly been inside an m-1 under fire
I have
WAR DADDY thanks for ur service
WAR DADDY just took a look at your videos and they’re badass 💯
'its outdated', you're forgetting that the free syrian army uses t34s, is3s and panzer IV's lmao
Dont forget su 85s
Top ten tank armies lol
Free syrian army is codeword for isis
@@IXIskarfaceIXI not yet but in a year or 2 it will be the next terror group after the west backs them
@-T-X-M- i would say to increase the thiccccness on the upper front plate but thats about it
M1 Abrams is out of date.
Unlike the M1A1 Abrams & M1A2, it has a 105mm!
Yeah and alot more than just the gun
@@jessegm1 That sweet sweet depleted uranium and TUSK armour package!
No available for the M1, only available for M1A1+
@@stewie1237 I know, what i implyed was ontop the gun which @Jesse Meester mention, it would also need the depleted uranium added to the composite and the TUSk package ontop of that!
M1 Abrams tank is most successful tank in the world T-90vsM1abrams Abrams win
The M1? Absolutely it’s out of date. Thankfully we’re on M1A2s with the A3 in the near future. I don’t think they will change the main cannon because the L55 is significantly longer which makes inter-city maneuvers more problematic and counter-intuitive to the current battlefields in which Abrams and their crews find themselves.
no one changes L44 for L55 because the firepower is maintained by a better ammunition and because a longer gun is subject to more vibrations. The cannon is still very good and the ammo will keep it relevant for decades
Or America could just be normal and make a new tank so they can completely redesign it, making it top-of-the-line instead of a bit better at a time.
@@sturmgeschutze3070 Takes a lot more money and time to dream up a tank, convince a country its the way to go than produce it compared to just upgrading your current tanks.
Lets be honest here, the M1a2, isnt a tank destroyer, it will have supporting units you better believe it, tailored to the threat at hand, in my opinion Tank on Tank in a Fair fight Russian Tanks would barely beat the Abrams, Luckily America isnt in the buisness of picking fair fights
IKnowMyWorldWars m1a3 is mainly focused on reducing weight, biggest issue with the abrams is the weight.
In every M1 Tank got destroyed video ever:
1. Used by foreign force.
2. M1 sits alone in the open field, or just be alone.
3. No infantry around.
4. Got shot in the ass.
5. Tank got hit once, crew run outside.
No most of them hit the front at least from what i saw. Also they didnt just leave immiediatly. It was either an instant explosion or they just still sat in the tank and fought untill even more rounds were put in it and it was disabled.
then you must have missed the video where a Kornet totaly destroy a Saudi M1A2 from about 2km range with a hit on the tower
In regards to firepower the US doctrine has relied on airpower for its primary anti tank platforms since world war 2. Because of this doctrine US tanks tend to be more multirole oriented instead of heavy breakthrough platforms like the Russian tanks or mobile defensive pillboxes like the German or British tanks. I would say this is why the US places a heavy emphasis on fire control instead of having the thickest armor or the hardest hitting gun.
Multirole orientation is a very good thing, because wars have this tendency: they don't go as planned.
.o. And hence 3 Abrams ended up being overgrown broiler by an IED....
M1Abrams is Obsolete when KV-2 enters the battle
You know someone had to say it...
you mean the Sturmpanzer?
Golden Albatross gets fucked at long and medium ranges
X3eno still gets fucked abrams takes it out easily
? That shit is weak I eat that for breakfast
Golden Albatross KV-2 can’t rotate its turret while the tank is going up terrain.
Sum up the comment section: White is better than blue because bla bla bla i just turned 18 and think I know everything
More like, "I play War Thunder so I think I know everything about tanks."
Sum up every 3rd world shitholer dicksucking commie: M1 Abrams out of date, maybe if i keep saying it's outdated it'll become outdated cuz I'm mentally retarded
@@AngloImperial thats..... a bit harsh but sadly true. Threre is an event similar to this in EU4 called Military Complacency
@@AngloImperial How triggered you are
@@endlessdrive8421 “I don’t play war thunder so I think I know more than people because they play games” 😂
It's funny how people shit on the Abrams without knowing that there's a huge difference between the American variant and the export variant (Less armor). And considering how it's constantly being upgraded, it'll take a while before it really goes obsolete, as it has everything a tank could desire for now.
the export variant doesn't have the fancy armor or fire control systems so its just a regular metal box at that point...
I still think it would be nice to have a 20mm defensive turret like the MBT 70 did...
that's the thing, though. Most modern tank clashes have been with at least one side, sometimes both sides using export variants.
I imagine how large the fuel consumption is. In real war this thing would run out of fuel faster than anything. Supply lines would be destroyed and this shit would run out fuel at speed of light. How can this tank armour be obsolete when it when it has so much armour? I can't really call this an MBT this more resembles a heavy tank.
I've seen a Quora where a veteran would talk shit of the users of these export tanks, in that case, the Saudis against the Yemeni rebels.
You've got them all: the isolated, next to buildings, completely exposed and oblivious to the surroundings, making a slow ATGM shot from very far away will still hit.
I remember seeing this video of an American Abrams (with the full armor package) in Iraq and it took about 15 or so RPG hits and those hits were coming from all around the tank. It got hit in the sides and the front and maybe even the back yet it didn't die. The crew seemed to be very shocked because they were hardly moving the turret but the tank itself could still work.
"RICOCHET, IT ONLY SCRATCHED US!"
@@thecbrndude6208 😂😂
Still not as good as the M1 crew that decided to say "Fuck it" and rammed a concrete roadblock at full speed to get out of an ambush, causing the tank to get a little air. Gunner, commander, and driver slammed their heads into the optics upon landing - pretty sure they all came out with concussions lmaooo
Hit by RPG 7 from 1950! Only the optics, sensors and gun barrel is vulnerable but the RPG 29 is a different animal....which has penetrated US M1s in iraq with depleted uranium armour and killed crew members.
@@mac6899 the rpg29s hit it in the side and rear tho
Its like: One Abrams gets destroyed: "LMAO AbRamS iS OutDaTEd"
At the same Moment about 10 T72's or 10 T80's are getting destroyed
old t80 and t72 not moderniezd dumbass
@@lukabogdanovic4658 Well exported Abrams are also not upgraded, dumbass ;)
and those Abrams that were destroyed were Saudi exports with downgraded protection, stupidly sent into enemy territory without recon or support.
The funny thing is that these 2 tanks have their fuel tanks right in the front at the sides of the driver, if you shoot these fuel tanks you could light of the tank so you destroy the tank + kill the crew
Josef Fliegl
Oh no the soviet fuel tanks are self-sealing to my knowledge. They’re in the front because it’s functional armour. Besides, APFSDS isn’t a magical ignition switch like in video games, you need a spark.
what i dont understand from you guys... is you get your information about the T-90 and M1 from sites that took information from old manuals and tests from the M1A1AIMs and T-90S
The armor has been upgraded several times from then.
because the new shit is still classified...
@@happyjohn354 because the Americans use the M1A2 sep2/3 now.....and I dont know much about the Russians but I know it's not their flagship tank anymore
And so has the ammunition, on both sides. Still classified.
Austin american abrams will shit on t90ms but t90ms stands a decent chance
@@colejones594 T90ms is the export version tho.
T90M is the one used by the russians
the variant that gets scorched is M1A2S which is the Saudi Package which lacks Depleted Uranium Armor and it also lacks the chobham armor
the export variant doesn't have the fancy armor or fire control systems so its just a regular metal box at that point...
yep your correct the Local M1 Abrams are still capable while the export variant aren’t even protected.
@eddie money Wanna tell that to the A3s? I'm sure they'd love to hear that elegant criticism coming from some sperg in a UA-cam comment section.
Uh sorry dude, but the UFP isn't a weakness.
You're just completely wrong about Sabot vs extremely sloped plates. Testing has long confirmed that at angles above 80 degrees not even modern sabot projectiles can avoid ricochet. Sabot isn't magic, it may have higher deflection angles, but it still has them. If you try to fire sabot into the upper front plate from level ground it will deflect, be badly damaged, and break up on the coincidentally very thick collar of armor surrounding the turret ring directly behind the UFP. The Abrams hull does have issues, but the issue is the central nose section where the driver's hole eats into the depth of protection.
Now obviously if you can get ABOVE the tank and shot down onto the UFP virtually anything will go through it, but that would be try of virtually any modern vehicle's hull.
Wait but at longer ranges the shell tends to dip doesn't it or is it too weak be then to do much
@@Its_shiki_time4876 To weak and probaly not dipped enough. their is a reason why HEAT rounds are still used in modern tanks, because they dont lose penetration at long ranges.
@@Its_shiki_time4876 Controversial opinion; if the UFP was actually such a massive weakspot, the US military would address it long ago. In US hands the Abrams has performed exemplary, being, along with the Challenger II, the only modern MBT that has actually fought a large-scale conventional war. It is old and in many ways outdated, but apart from the T-14, almost all tanks are. T-90 is also just a modified and upgraded T-72, the Leopard II was first fielded in the late 70s and early 80s, and the Challenger II seems to be slowly getting abandoned by the UK. Going up against any of those tanks, the Abrams is completely comparable and has by far the most combat experience of all of them, which probably count towards a much more effective fighting unit.
@@Its_shiki_time4876
It dips because it loses velocity and thus energy, furthermore it would still likely be a significantly shallow angle. Generally speaking it's reasonable to assume that anything above 70 degrees is a bounce. This goes specially for Soviet ammunition which works a bit differently from NATO ammo. Soviet ammo uses a sort of "shell within a shell within a shell" design where the dart is softer and actually breaks and sends a super dense, extremely hard slug through the plate. This works very well on flat plates but is prone to bouncing if it impacts anything at a significant angle.
By contrast, NATO sabots tend to use a single hard rod with an extremely pointed tip and this is better at penetrating angled plates however they can't penetrate anything thicker than the length of the dart itself(hence the darts being made longer).
Furthermore, it's worthwhile to note that most of the what's under that frontal plate is fuel tanks which can most definitely act as armor. They can even prevent a vehicle kill. The main weak-spots of the Abrams are the driver's area which can be penetrated if hit at a good angle effectively immobilizing the tank and potentially doing even more damage than that, the underside of the turret - especially as shells deflected from the turret can actually get in or penetrate the turret ring and hits in that area would generally be rather unfortunate for the crew - especially a hit just under the gun.
Fortunately actually landing a hit in that specific area isn't exactly the easiest thing to pull off. It's a slightly different story from the sides which do have a few more weak spots without the TUSK packages however these are usually addressed in the tactical maneuvering and positioning of the Abrams.
Lastly, something everyone seems to forget about the M1 is that, as of the A2, it has come standard with a soft-kill MCD which redirects guided munitions away from the tank. I think it's one of the least appreciated aspects of modern tank protection and a big reason as to why dumb-fire rockets still exist.
@@The_Crimson_Fucker welp that answers my question
That old Abrams is battle proven with multiple ongoing updates.
Also US tactics and great experience with these platforms allows it to remain a very viable and lethal can of whoop ass.
Many of the UA-cam vids of M1's blowing up are export variants without the trick armor and the users displaying bad tactics.
The Rooskies multiple tank platforms and patchwork of variants speaks volumes about their economic and industrial limitations.
@Nimbus Nimbus Point? *Stabs You* THERE'S my point! WhaHaHaHa!!!
@-T-X-M- Proven by the crucible of fire. Nothing equivalent to Abrams on the planet today has the battle experience.
The Abrams has been in some of the most hostile battle environments
(IED's, latest gen anti tank guided weapons etc. provided by the Russians and Iranians)
and has proven itself. No modern equivalents can say that.
The US Army just released it's new updated M1A2 SEPv3 with all the goodies needed to keep it in the lead as the biggest can of whoop ass well into the 21st century.
Btw the Russians cant afford to build enough T14's so that by default removes them from the equation.
The Chinese Type 99, well, its Chinese so you have that issue and it's not battle proven unless you include rolling over peasants in Tiananmen Square.
@-T-X-M- Hate to break it to you, but very few modern MBTs have ever encountered other modern MBTs in combat. The only tank close to the combat experience of the the Abrams is the Merkava and that doesn't perform nearly as well against similar opposition
You know rusophile logic? When Russian made weapon gets destroyed ( like pantzir1) it is bad crew training or it was off. But if any west made weapon get destroyed it is just bad stuff. The logic of an idiot.
@@milanvnuk i know russophile logic well. They knock the Abrams for being "unproven in combat situations" when the Russian tanks haven't done anything outside of serving as command vehicles and morale pieces
Man I'm glad that World of tanks and Warthunder exists, created all these tank experts that know everything about anything. What a time to be alive.
A lot of them don't seem to realize that there is a whole lot more to the world. Tamnks do not fight in CQC combat where they are practically sword fighting with their turret barrels and America has a whole lot more CAS than you find in either game. Scratch that America doesn't even need it's close air support to get close and nor do a lot of other modern vehicles.
The same people who say the M1 Abrams are “obsolete” are the same ones who think T-72s are still formidable tanks in modern warfare.
T-72A variant are obsolete, not for T-72B3 2016 tho
Everybody who think that m1a2 Abrams is bad or Ok or obsolete, they are either not knowing how a tank is good or great or are biased with Russian technology
I was just trying to say that people are biased that Russian technology is the best other's are fuck
Therefore Abrams is obsolete
Maybe you’re biased with American technology.
they also think abrams fights alone... not interconnected with jets at 30k feet, specter gunships, ah 64s armed with 12 hellfire- over the horizon capability and satcom imagery ect. its funny to watch people ignore all that however.
@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan less of a drone, more of a no-crew-turret tank, it has an armoured capsule with the crew(like 2 or 3 guys i think) that is like a fuhrerbunker, but the turret has 20mm sides
5:16 "fuel efficiency" yeah sure... in Yemen the saudi M1s consumed twice as much gas as the UAE Leclercs. As a result their logistic was a pain in the ass.
yeah, the Abrams has many advantages, but fuel consumption isn't one of them.
If anything is out dated by US standards, it's the god damn infantry rifles.
Why?
The m16s are fine, what do you mean?
Not to mention nukes too!
Hasn't they replaced the good old m16 with M4?
People don’t understand, the tanks that are being smoked, are the ones that have the composite armour removed, and sold to countries in god knows where. Now, I write this in the very beginning if the video. That being said, I am no Tank expert, I love tanks and I am still learning much about them, I do know the Abrams has separate ammo storage in the turret, allowing for it to be hit in the turret and not have the turret crew cooked by burning ammo. She does have her flaws, but is most definitely not obsolete. 40 year old design, but upgradable, like a PC Tower, once the chassis cant be able to hold upgrades, then you can call it obsolete.
"Dude, you need to buy a new PC, upgrading your current one doesn't work"
@-T-X-M- we just dont need to when we first developed the Abrams it blew everything out of the water for the next 40 years... same with the F-22 Raptor...
It's obsolete as a money maker for all the greased palms in Washington. Other than that, it's still a very functional tank.
Actually it's still making money. They still build them to replaced those sold or lost. We also are rebuilding them at a great savings to the latest updated version. The original M1 hulls are still usable. And they can be upgraded to any following version. Even those sold over seas money is made on them.
And they get cheaper the more are made. It is Economics. The more are out there, the cheaper they will be. Eventually, you will be able to drive one to work each day if you wanted to.
However, it is extremely unlikely that they will be made in anywhere near enough numbers for this to happen.
@@flare9757 just had to dash my hopes of driving an abrams to work.
RobLogFett Think of it as reinforcing it. If enough are made, it is possible to do so.
Imperial Shocktrooper Though I doubt anyone would have any incentive to make them so much that it’s cheap enough for me to buy it and drive it to the office. Then again, who would authorize said purchase?
America may have the 2nd Amendment, but pretty sure most 2nd Amendment supporters would draw the line on being able to buy a tank.
can you do a video about the french leclerc ?
Attemps n*7
The Leclerc is a worse K2, change my mind
The Leclerc has the best reverse gear .
@@rockreed3989 wouldn't that be the Japanese Type 10 had a top speed of 45mph in reverse I think
@@bryanmartinez6600 wooosh
@@fi4re I know he means the french retreating joke but overall FRANCE still has more victorious battles over any other country, they are followed by the British and then USA and Russia
Obsolete? I don't think so. Vulnerable? Sure, just like any other weapon system against the right enemy with the right weapon in the right situation. That can be said of any weapon. Carriers. bombers. etc.
Heavy maybe
My favorite part:
"get in a jeep, drive 400 miles to get around US lines, drive 390 miles to get back to the front line but from the wrong side now, somehow survive this experience, set up an ATGM post behind enemy lines, successfully hit 1 tank, survive return fire, survive enemy infantry, survive enemy rear-echelon troops, get yeeted by enemy CAS, somehow survive this experience, get in jeep, drive 400 miles to get around US lines and back to your side of the front line, somehow survive this experience, _die to friendly fire because you're coming from the wrong side_ ."
Tl;dr the idea that you can just "shoot it in the back" presupposes that it's being driven and commanded by some illiterate tribesmen who don't know how to war right.
The UPF of the Abrams will bounce APFSDS rounds because its at such a high angle and APFSDS have a habit of shattering at extreme slopes causing the penetrator to be rendered ineffective
I see you play Fail Thunder, but that's not how it works in real life..
@@Vegeta-ci8xu False. There are many test that have shown that at extreme angles, modern projectiles still can't avoid ricochets. They ARE not magical imaginary rounds that penetrate 10 0%. The shell would eventually breakup and hit the turret.
So then, use a 152mm HE shell
Have you ever noticed that the 80* angle MIGHT bounce it into the turret ring, eliminating the abrams instantly?
@@sturmgeschutze3070 I see you didn’t read the comment and missed the word “shattered”
Remember that the Russians still use T72
That Merry Christmas outro was awesome!! Great video overall BTW. Well done. God bless from the Republic of Ireland. :)
Someone says Abrams are shit
Me: why do I hear communism?
because even a serb tank can EZ the abrams due to its mobility, a 'good enough' gun and offroad capabillities
@@Lazar-ox5bd yes and an Abrams can do the same right back to the those poor overworked T-72’s
@@ComfortsSpecter in urban environment on road where it can move properly of course
@@ComfortsSpecter BUT in environment that is mostly muddy or large ass forests good luck finding an m84 there, as it is basically in some parts the opposite of the Abrams, (the old m84) low armor, a decent gun with shit projectiles, and an off road beast, while the abrams is a large armor with DU ammo, and armor but poor off road performance with its main strength coming in urban environment
@@Lazar-ox5bd ummm, Abrams can handle sand and dirt just fine, it’s hills and jank terrain handling is pretty standard as in “just fine” definitely not the best but I’m pretty sure it can handle a muddy road and roaming hills
and then through the power of techno wizardry, the tank (or it’s support) could guess or locate the movement in the woods
and then appropriately stay back with support and force them to move, maybe out, maybe deeper, but move them
and then a helicopter would probably come by and kill half the serb tanks in the forest
anticlimactically wasting the American armored divisions time and forcing the T-72s to play safer
So a Serb tank platoon or two gets cut in half and the Americans end up with wasted ordnance, time, and some thick mud in their tracks
Pretty realistic if you ask me
*But if it did end in MBT combat then the T-72 would probably take some cheeky shots, injuring multiple tanks, likely killing very few of the , an the the Abrams, along with its lesser armored supports would take long range shots, injuring and disabling any one that gets too open and killing and a fair few outright, if the serbs stayed well hidden they would probably kill a handful of lesser armored vehicles outright and cripple some Abrams, likely destroying a lot more then they would if they were spotted beforehand*
*And then the helicopters and strategic bombers will come and rock the battlefield*
So yeah if the T-72’s want to win the fight in the woods
It really depends on the tactics and operators of the tank and how much support the Abrams can get, which normally it gets a lot
If they stay hidden, it evens the odds and will probably go down in modern tank warfare history as a very historical battle
If there found out, TOW missiles and silver bullets will rain in from every direction and they would have to retreat
I love your channel , very informative and unbiased. You should have more subscribers !
Golden agreed
Thanks a lot guys :)
Woah 2 of my favourite youtubers replying to me. Awesome.
Something tells me that guy watched the propaganda where the insurgent fired a atgm at the abrams and set the turret ammo off emphasis on the turret ammo.
Just because the Abrams is old does not mean it is bad. T90 is based on T72, which is old design as well, older than Abrams. And yet the T90 is an extremely effective modern tank that would be capable of holding its own if not outright dominating much newer designs. Upgrades mean a lot, there are guns and planes still in use made in the 1950s. If you have a good platform that serves you well, it is much better to upgrade it with new tech than to just develop something new every few years. Abrams has served us well. The original design is dated but I'm confident the upgrades they are making will keep is one of the most effective tanks around.
Exactly. Take the B-52 for example the airframe maybe old but with all the new electronic warfare and all the new munitions coming out its still a very lethal bomber
When someone says the Abrams is obsolete I immediately assume I'm dealing with someone who doesnt have a brain.
Bruh leopard 2a7 is waaay better than Challenger and m1
Depleted uranium ammo makes up in firepower so no need for the unwieldy L55
We would not give them our gun anyway
@@luzerino1124 We already license produce the exact same gun with a shorter barrel already dipshit we dont need anything from you.
Luzerino Lol yes you would, you’d give us anything we asked for.
Cost is a major driver but the issues are only relevant if the M1 fights a near peer threat. Then we have too look at so much more (air dominance, artillery capabilities etc). It is a big battlefield and having a tank that is adequate often is all an army gets.
2:04 watching that suspension is really satisfying
Happy Holidays Red Effect! And please, if you would put the music you have used in to the description, we could go and listen the complete songs as well! There have been several nice tunes in your videos!
APFDS will not penetrate the UFP. At that angle it will ricochet unless to fire down at it.
The comments at the start had me dying 😭😭😭😭
great video as always
One thing that must be taken into account are intangibles, how good is the communication system, crew spacing, crew comfort, training of said true, moral, etc.
Without the Ju-87 Stuka .Blitzkrieg would've been a flash in the pan .
U S tanks are never alone .
(Combine Arms) ,but you arm chair World of Tanks warriors wouldn't know that .
Stick to Pac Man
only war thunder player skrubs liek me can relate
@@WHOARETHEPATRIOTS475 :)
Broke Dog “WE NEED SPAA OUT HERE NOW!”
@@flare9757 sorry boss everybody abandoned their vehicles after capturing point A
Broke Dog Well, sh!t
*in team chat* GET BACK HERE AND FIGHT!
Lol that Abrams look pretty good with that beard, is that a new kind of beard based frontal armor?
The M256 variant of the Rheinmetall 120mm is designed to shoot American advanced projectiles. With the advancement of the munitions especially with a DU sabot, the L44 is more than enough to puncture the most modern tanks frontally. Ranges beyond 2km is rare in modern engagements and hence the L55 is a luxury that will hardly be used. A shorter barrel also leaves easier maneuvering in tricky terrain especially up and over bumpy terrain. In urban areas, the L44 gives the tank more room to hide and work corners.
Instead of going L55, Gun makers should consider 140mm main gun with a similar barrel length.
Anyone noticed that all tank battles in recent memory were between cold-war era tanks, or with only one side fielding modern equipment?
Has there never been a tank battle yet only between post-Cold War era Armor?
The first m1 mmmm maybe out dated but m1a2 sep2/v2 mmmm naa those thing are still being upgrade
The original m1 is definitely outdated but the m1a2 with the different Sep variants is definitely not outdated, it might not be as good as some near peers tanks but it is still comparable.
It is always interesting to read negative comments about the Abrams. Of course, most of these comments are self serving and inaccurate. The Abrams is far from out dated. It has performed in an outstanding manner in many conflicts and will continue to do so. Comparisons to the Armata are ludicrous. The T14 is in very low production and is insignificant in battle. The T80 and T90 are no match for the Abrams. No other potential adversary has any credible tank.
I can see that your from usa and thinks that abroms is best cuz its tank from my country bleh bleh abromg gut
@Devolver be quite abroms is best cuz it is a usa army tonk so it need to be best yeah best abroms other tanks are trash abroms has killed some t55 so its battle proofed
I can tell you're not from the us since I had a stroke trying to read your comment Mr "Anonymous" lol
I remember when the M1A first came into service. Lots of nay sayers and press about doubts in a real battle. Plenty of trash talk when it made it's first wartime debut in OpDes Stm. Everyone was wrong. The tank performed well, did not breakdown in dirt or sand, and definitely outclassed any Iraqi armor it met. Yes, that armor did not have the latest Russian ordinance, but the M1A did not just blow snot bubbles and go home. If the M1 is obsolete, so is every other MBT in the world.
I really like this channel. You're not biased. You're fair, and mostly you care about being accurate.
Keep up the great work!
It's so sad that there are people around who think that the Americans would just build a tank in 1980 and then just keep it like that without ever upgrading it ...
Goes for any country about any piece of modern equipment.
M1 has higher chamber-pressure on their licensed built L/44 gun, almost matching the german L/55's power with a shorter barrel btw.
But not l55a1
I am not a tank expert in the slightest but couldn't they just replace the l44 with a l55 or is it way harder than that.
@@shinobi0639 Why would they? They don't really need to.
"You think you could defeat me? An out dated design?"
"This isn't even my final form"
Everything except the hull protection and full consumption is pretty good if not great. Those two just happen to be incredibly important.
Merkava 4 next?
The M1A3 is entering service, so your argument is invalid
2023 hasn't gotten here yet, bro.
You seemed very concerned about the firepower of the M1. Is there any vehicle in the world it can’t destroy? No.
Uh.. the real obsolete is the crew who operate it
We need M2 Abram...
That's a tough question, it's nearly 40 years old, but was built with 50 years of improvements in mind & while there are so many improvements that can be made case in point a more modern turbine engine which would most probably be more powerful, fuel efficient & I would hope less maintenance heavy engine.
But to use such words as obsolete? That's beginning to take the piss right there! Like at least let it live out it planned service life before using that kind of talk.
As per usual I am commenting before I watch the video just to see if the points in the video speak to me & who knows, may even change my opinion, love your work RedEffect :)
There are records and reports on the M1 and Challenger 2 being hit by the RPG-7's. The M1 was hit 7 time's with RPG-7 and was so badly damaged it had to be towed of the battlefield and had to have a ton for repair'. The Challenger 2 was hit with 14 time's with RPG-7 and was still able to fight and could move using its own power pack and then went in for repairs but less worked was need. Both got hit in the same areas and both had track damage but the Challenger 2 with better armour was able to take 2x the damage and still fight and move and that is just of the reasons the Challenger 2 is a better tank.
*congrats on 9k subs my dude*
Look I’ve got criticisms of the Abrams. That’s it even the best tanks in the world have their flaws. Take it like a man and understand that your chosen favorite tank that you like isn’t perfect. Whether or not you have a Russian or American bias. Americans and Russians alike engage in Sabre rattling with each other’s technology. There’s a chance that both of their technology is overhyped and that they’re roughly comparable. But fanboys on both sides are the worst that turns every single conversation about these tanks into “Muh Abrams” or “Muh T-90”. It’s hard to talk about these machines in any positive light without descending into a argument.
The truth is very few modern MBTs have ever seen real combat and out of all them the Abrams has performed better, that's really it
@@TheTeremaster performed better than export models. And all of the tanks the Abrams has fought have also been export models. So it's pretty difficult to tell for sure. The Abrams is clearly still good enough, though, for training and other factors to make the difference in combat with other modern tanks, more than the tank itself would.
@MSGTsniper Guy totally agreed. We don't know how the non-export, fully updated versions of either perform against each other. And honestly? I hope we don't learn, any time soon, because that would mean a pretty serious war.
In summary the M1 Abrams is old but still a potent tank for the time being.
Most of the comments against the M1A2 can be directed at MBT's in general. And in general, tanks have been called obsolete for many decades already.
Since Russian APFSDS ammunition is optimised for use against flat composite armour (like the turret face of the Abrams), it's likely to suffer against extremely highly angled monolithic plates.
It will therefore experience some degree of de-normalisation because the tip is not designed to deal with that kind of armour, so if the upper glacis de-normalises the trajectory of the round by say, 3 degrees, that 366mm becomes 585mm.
That's only true for old ammunition with a tungsten penetrator sheathed in steel. The newest ammunition of that type is 3BM26 "Nadezhda-R" that came out in 83. The year before it they made the 3BM29 "Nadphil-2" which was more of a rod penetrator than a slug penetrator and thus it did well against sloped armor. It reportedly could penetrate 210 mm at 60° = 420 mm LoS at 2000 m so 51 mm at 82° = 366 mm LoS should be very much possible since that round clearly normalizes against sloped armor. I would guess that even out to 3000 meters it would have a 50-50 chance if not better to go though.
Keep in mind this is old ammo, the newest ammo for the T-90A and T-90M, the 3BM59 "Svinets-1" and 3BM60 "Svinets-2" has over 50% more penetration than Nadphil-2 and should be able to punch through it without problem at most realistic ranges and angles.
A. The M1A2 has DU lower plate. no DU upper. it uses hard composites for upper. its turret front and sides use DU, its sides use less DU on the M1A2 SEP. the sides of the tank use light DU as well but the least of any point of the tank if any. but it still has an armor composition able to take alot of heat (some HEAT as well).
i work with this information for a living. your SOURCE is an OBSERVATION by a reporter about the M1A1 as of 2005.
B. the driver's compartment of the M1A2 is a capsule. designed for the driver to lean back a bit. and seal the hatch. that front upper is thicker then 51mm. Maybe dont get your information from games like ARMORED WARFARE.
C. " unlike any other modern tank " youre saying. you cant trap-shot a Leo2A6/7? or a T-90M/AM. are you shitting me? you even showed pictures of it able to do so.
D. There have been early M1A1s that taken direct RPG fire from Iraqi military to the side. and have brushed it off as track damage.
E. the M1A2C added ERA to its sides to protect against Sabots and some missiles. not HEAT specifically. Not only that, but that ERA also is using clay slabs for supplementary spaced armor.
F. the M1 has had an APS system for a long time. its actually a system thats been being upgraded over the years by Raetheon. it was originally used on the M60A3. But was never mounted to the M1 in a combat zone.
G. holy shit this video came out in Dec 26th? 2018.
The M1A2 has been swapping to M829A4 since early 2018. its ADL is designed to act as a semi-smart munition. The main gun of the M1A2 is US made. it is originally modified off the L/44. but its not a bought gun, then modified in a plant.
H. HOLY SHIT. LONGER GUN DOESNT EQUAL BETTER PENETRATION! The Longer Barrel on of the L/55 vs. the L/44 is for accuracy reasons only. Germany created a new Sabot munition for the L/55 alone just to be able to adjust to the muzzle velocity DROP the L/55 had. now the L/55 is fireing at 1760m/s like the L/44 originally was. accuracy and up-armor of the gun is now improved.
The munition makes better penetration. i agree that at some points the barrel can be taken into account. but anything really longer then the L/44 will cause gas leakage on munition activation, meaning the prime gases will have left the barrel sooner then the munition does. which means the munition wont be as effective as theres less push from the gases. This is why Germany made a longer Sabot for their APFSDS munition Penetrator.
Not to mention that the longer the gun, the shittier the thing will be in urban combat.
I. uhm. the FCS is the best in the world. the fuck are you talking about? All you need to do in the M1A2C is flip a switch to indicate munition type. laser range find the target with the integrated system with the commander's laser range system. hit a button, and the FCS does the rest. it will even angle the gun for you. Wile it can even take other factors such as wind speed, heat outside, and the location you want the airburst to detonate over. the M1A2C FCS is integrated with the rest of its systems. its not independent.
On the other hand. Russian FCS just recently went as smart as the west in the T-14. But its still slower by seconds to the US's. those seconds can matter if its a long distance engagement.
J. T-90 doesnt have a gunner and commander FLIR till the T-90AM. and its still a generation behind the US's. this isnt a bias ether. its equipment checking. do some yourself. The M1A2C incorporates colored imaging to the commanders sight with FLIR white/black hot and classic Thermal as switchable options. wile its Night Vision systems are some of the best in the world in quality and distance.
T-90 and T-14 dont have high def colored camera displays. given the T-14 has all 3 of its crew looking at a camera. sorta because theyre all sitting next to each other.
K. actually i also have no idea if they did anything with the M1A2C's upper hull plate. but i do know they laminated and carbon hardened the DU on the M1A2C. itll just be harder to HEAT penetrate it.
also. the M1A2D is on the way that has even more changes.
Most of your points a irellevant and wrong.
Particularly the armor,FCS and ammo
the Armor of all M1 variants is good in the front but that upper plate is a massive weakspot.
the FCS is not the best the M1A2 sep V3 only just now got to the level of a T90M and even the T90SM form 2011 has had colour cameras.
And want something even funnyer the M1A1 and T80U compute external data.....FCS's post 1990 have awlays done this.
the M829A4 is not really any better then the A3 it only theoretecly cant "defeat" Retlik ERA.
@Keller weskier if you "work with this information for a living" you should let the Russian fanboys whine and complain and claim superiority on the web as much as they want while you keep any even remotely sensitive technical information about your nation's tanks secret. Maybe all of what you said is publicly available information, but perhaps it's safest to keep your playing cards close to your chest and not inadvertently help some foreign adversary nation's intelligence-gathering process.
@@metanumia all his info are available to public anyway so what's the deal?
@@TonymanCS I'm encouraging him to be *cautious* about just how much technical information he shares on the web since he said himself that he "works with this info every day", so I'm assuming he's a defense contractor, engineer, or other profession with access to classified information. In the modern era we all live in there is a massive international battle for hidden information and secret technical specifications in the military domain all across the web and sometimes people can get so wrapped up in an online forum conversation that they completely forget their operational security training and accidentally leak highly useful information to an adversary who could benefit from it to a high degree, it's just a polite warning. ;)
@@00008HANK any kinetic round hitting that upper plate would shatter and break rendering it harmless
According to this guy, all tanks are either obselete or about to become obselete. Hey, if all tanks are obselete no one is.
The M1A1 and A2 exist. Not to mention: They're fast as fuck.
Your intro always spooks me into thinking the T-90 is staring into me with it's dazzlers active, until I see a gas mask.
Yes it is...
Supermarine Spitfire is way better than the Yak-9
controversial opinions 101
Chearfire is too op, please nerf.
the shitfire is no match for the mighty Yakovlev-9! 1v1 me in War Thunder m8!
I eat them for lunch #WarThunder
The Viggen wins over both
Most important: American tanks don't get deployed without air superiority. Drone + Helllfire = ded tanx
that intro was funny as fk :) ily also, now im subbed, this plus that vid looking into russian tank designs are great, ily
5:14
>Fuel efficiency
>Gas turbine engine
the M1's in Iraq getting blown up are the water down Abrams, meaning they dont have as good protection, but people ignore this fact, but when talking about the tanks the M1A1 fought against, they defend them, and its not a gas-guzzler, literally talk to anyone who has been in a M1, and they will tell you that its amazing!
(In case you havent notice this is to disprove the people who think the M1 is obsolete) just shut up, and love this thing!
Shhhh people don't know that and the refuse to know
@@HyperNebula "and the refuse to know?" English? Do you speak it?
@@bluefoxy6478 haha funny the english do you speak it when somebody forgets to type one letter that's funny jack ass
most of the tanks M1s have fought have also been export versions. So I think some of its fans exaggerate how good it is... but still, it's clearly still effective in the US Army's eyes. Or else they'd try to get a new tank rather than continue modifying and upgrading their old one.
Daniel Brownson So, even the US Army uses the export model for their own military use overseas? Like, when they were in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was the export version?
Why don’t they use their own version?
By the way at the end of the video when you show that you know so many Abrams Tanks have been destroyed and all the crews have you no been injured or have died that's false we have not have lost any lives in the Abrams tank and the only tanks we have lost was too friendly fire
the abrams tanks that have been destroyed or disabled have mainly been saudi arabian or iraqi operated, and since theyre export variants they dont have all the modifications of the american models, so there have been abrams destroyed by enemy fire, just not many american ones
How to beat the Abrams?
keep running away and it will run out of fuel before you do.
Russian tanks are pretty "outdated" considering the T-90 looks like a fucking T-64. The most armored tank in the world is currently the leopard 2 with it's most recent variant, ever since the 2a5 the armor has been on the top. The challenger 2 is overrated in armor, the armor just looks like it would work, but in reality the composite is of lesser amount with a good slope. M1 Abrams has considerable armor that is comparable to the challenger 2 -I did not say the Challenger 2 armor was bad. Tungsten in reality is a much better material for armor composition, DU is just cheaper.
The wedged turret front of 2a5-6 isn't special lmao. It's just applique steal
@@rayhan_2k841, in reality you don't understand the great bonus of a hollow wedge. Round hits the angle (penetration quality decreases) has to penetrate the front steel and then while inside the wedge the penetrators deforms and breaks causing the kinetic energy to not be great enough to do much of anything to the main composite. A 2a4 with B composite in early 1980s had 430 vs KE, adding the beginning design of the wedge to B composite jumped it to 800 vs KE (this was in early 1990 for the leopard 2 improved). Fun fact, the main armor of the leopard 2 improved had 670 vs KE because it had C composite from late 1980s. Putting C behind the wedge should jump the turret armor to 1000-1100 vs KE easily. A slant or angled turret can't give this level of bonus, penetration quality is decreased only by the angle.
One of the advantages of Abrams is the acceleration and mobility given by the turbine engine. It may not have insane top speed, but the engine lets it accelerate really fast, which is important in battle.
Yeah but that fuel consumption compared to other power packs is oof
The thing is to my understanding the L/55 would not work for DU projectiles, DU looses its effectiveness if it goes too fast which is why you see from m829-m829A3 they get slower
The Abrams is an outdated tank, not obsolete. It's current up to date models do their jobs very well. The Abrams was, from my understanding, made to be very modular so it can have a long service life due to being upgraded. The problem is that the Abrams is starting to push its limits on upgrades. It's become much heavier and there is only so much more that can be done without affecting its general design and core parts. I believe the Secretary of the Army acknowledged this but it's been a minute. They also admitted that the Abrams will continue to be modified for the short term, but that new concepts were being explored because the Abrams is due for retirement.
There is talk of the Abrams X.
When you look at what it's most likely going to be fighting it's kind of a moot point, Russia and by extension anyone who bought eastern block tanks have just been polishing the same tank for years as well. In regards to the T-14 it's practical war fighting capabilities are ether speculation or likly russian over-hype and isn't going to suddenly be the silver bullet for the M1A2 series. When the contemporary is the same shit with a new hat why can't the Americans do the same
the T-14 still uses the T-64 chassis... all Russian tanks still use the T-64 chassis...
@@happyjohn354I hope this is satire
The m1 kinda is dated in some areas, its armor is kinda dated by today's standards and adds alot of weight unnecessary because rather than come up with more advanced composites or some form of layered protection they seem to just slap more and more armor on to the tank which puts a lot strain on the power pack and degrades its service life not only that but the armor protection of the M1A2 SEPv3 isnt that much more than T-90MS's protection rating and the T-90MS is almost 17 tons lighter. Also the main gun of m1 is also pretty old by NATO standards, you could also count the M1's lack of an automatic loading device another dated concept especially with how successful the bustle auto loaders are on the type 90 and Leclerc MBT's that's not to say the M1A2 isnt effective but it is a very dated platform that cant really go any further size the platform itself very modular.
The very correct conclusion is.
A 19 or 20 year old in good shape is far more effective then an auto loader.
@@ssgus3682 other than more people to perform PMCS the loader really isnt that much more effective than a standard auto loader.
@LordEd21 21 the the base armor protection on the M1A2 and its variants is the same. The only major difference with the SEP v3 over the SEP v2 is the new M829A4 and the addition of Trophy and in some cases(only in Europe) they are fitted with ERA tiles. that being said the M829A3 and A4 have been reported to cause excessive wear on the M1's barrel further increasing the cost of the M1's maintenance, all so they don't have to adopt the L/55 gun. Also the M1A2C (sepv3) is also 73 tons which is 13 tons heavier than the original M1 needless to say the Power pack is extremely overworked even on the M1A2SEP V2's
@LordEd21 21 you do realize that Spokesperson's for manufactures are not factual evidence right that's like saying a Mustang has a V12 engine because the car salesman told you that. That being said it makes no mention about new armor in any of the official literature or articles relating to the vehicle unless the Spokesperson is referring the M1A2C's improved IED protection. That being said GDLS wouldn't be able to upgrade the armor composite even if they wanted to because they don't have the means to completely gut the vehicle and replace the spaced armor modules because they Lima Army tank plant has been shut down and they where the ones producing M1 abrams tank. That's when the Army started going with the SEP program instead of making a M1A3 that has been on the back burner for 12 years now. Also in regards to the transmission, we simply don't know if that improves anything or if its the manufacturer blowing smoke up the military's ass either way the transmission isn't the only thing affected by weight. The suspension, road wheels, and tracks all have to bear this extra weight and the added weight will significantly decrease their lifespan. why do you think the Army is contracting for a "light Abrams" program to either supplement or replace the M1 Abrams? As for the bit about how a higher pressure propellants would cause a decrease in tube life, I think that's pretty obvious if you know anything about firearms, but if you don't its simply faster propellants generate more velocity... that increased velocity makes the round travel down the barrel faster which causes more friction with the barrel walls meaning more wear.
Abrahams had one thing that make me curious:depleted uranium is hard to get and its limited by time
1. USA is a nuclear power finding depleted uranium rod with which to use in a composite armor isn't has hard as one might think 2. limited by time? pretty sure radiation has no effect on the density of a element.
M1 abrams:made in 1980
OUTDATED
50cal. browning:
LIVES OLDER THAN YOUR GRANDPA
S T I L L I N S E R V I C E
Look at desert storm and Iraq war. It took out all the Iraqi elite t-90 tanks without any causalties other than a friendly fire. It's a beast
T-72s. Not T-90s.
They were T-72s and T-55s tho
@@jackie520 essentially the same thing but with slight upgrades...
Happy John not even close to the same thing.
is this the part where i post an National Interest link as a source.
There were two reported losses during the Battle of Baghdad, with one Abrams being put out of action after being struck by numerous medium caliber weapons, including 12.7mm rounds which ruptured a fuel bladder stored on an external rack. This started a fire that spread to the engine.
What is the M1A2C doing for the hull armor? I saw the weight they put their to simulate extra armor, did they ever do anything with it?
IED's or Improvised Explosive Device typically used by Terrorists are being used far more frequently because of how DESPERATE the Terrorists have become. The Abrams is ANYTHING but Obsolete. Sure it's a bit outdated but those outdated tanks are pulled from the battlefield and completely stripped down to their original Hulls then rebuilt and UPDATED to deal with current needs of the Military. No other Tank on the face of Earth has this ability. The Russian T-70 comes close but even they are no real match for the Abrams. If I had to compare the Abrams to any tank in History it would be the Tiger I from Germany, WWII. This shit War on Terror has been raging since 2001, upwards of 17 years as of Dec 2018, and I am here to say America has barely lost 1 Tank per YEAR. How many Russian Tanks have been lost in that same period? Too many to count. The Abrams is a Game Changer and I look forward to it's replacement when it has been fully maxed out; which will not be any time soon. Given the fact that in over 16 years of war less than 16 Abrams and 4,000 men, give or take, have been lost and I will take those ODDS EVERYDAY of the Week. Kid yourself that the Abrams is Obsolete but I bet you would shit yourself instantly if you had to FACE ONE in Battle... Merry Christmas....
More than 350-400 M1s that could not be repaired and hundreds of other armored vehicles were left in Iraq in the United States, which was subsequently seized by extremists.
Iraq lost almost all of the export M1 shipped to the United States in recent years, and bought the T-90.
The loss of the T-72 is due to the fact that it is the most militant and effective tank for today, for which it was created.
PS M1 flares well from the impact of an ATGM everywhere, except the forehead of the tower.
It was quite difficult to load the M1 into the plane that was taken out of Iraq)
I see M1 only as a source of spare parts for information and scrap metal, as well as the Tigger, these are 50-60 tons of excellent secondary raw materials and technologies))
@@elusive6119 I'd only be wasting my time to insult you because you are Russian and LIFE is insulting you enough so for me to add to your dismay would be a waste of my time. Your Biased Media is telling you LIES and since you lack the ability to seek out the truth I will suggest you just stop posting LIES that are easily disproved. I bet you believe that RUSSIA ALONE won WWII, right? And that Russia never had the German Russian Nonaggression Pact with Germany during the early stages of WWII. Pity there is no way for the Average Russian to get the REAL STORY.
First and very FOREMOST, the US would not EVER, nor has it EVER, left Abrams Tanks behind. Yes it did leave varous vehicles and trucks behind before but NOT ON Abrams Tank has been left behind. As for selling M1's to Iraq, well that is just a LIE. Iraq has been America's Enemy for a very long time. Unlike Russia, America would not EVER sell the M1 on the Open Market. If such sales did happen I can only conclude they were the Early M1's without any upgrades that were probably stolen of FAKES hence the reason the FAILED so easily in Combat. To my knowledge NO SALE of M1's from America to Iraq has EVER taken place and again that is a FACT. America has sold off the Older M-60 Tanks from the Vietnam Era but no M1's that I am aware of. Perhaps your News Media has confused the two tanks.
The first Gulf War only lasted 4 days, started on a Monday and was over Thursday evening. But you won't know that because of the way your Media is CONTROLLED in Russia; and how it's surrounding areas are CONTROLLED. I bet you don't know how to use Google so I will do the search for you and here are the results:
Google this:
how many abrams tanks have been destroyed in battle
Here are the results:
www.quora.com/How-many-M1-Abrams-have-been-destroyed-in-combat
553 Abrams have been taken out of combat, but only 14 have actually been destroyed by enemy fire. During the Gulf War, 23 M1A1 Abrams were taken out of combat. This is including 7 destroyed by accidental friendly fire and 2 which were scuttled to prevent enemy capture.
Taken out of Battle is not the same as DESTROYED, only 14 have been DESTROYED. Those taken out of Battle have been repaired, upgraded, and RETURNED to Combat. This is exactly what I said, "America has barely lost 1 Tank per YEAR." Maybe your translation program is defective so let me break this down for you. The War has been raging thus far from 2001 until 2018 or approx 17 years give or take. Only 14 Abrams Tanks have been lost in 17 years of Battle. That is what is meant by Barely lost 1 tank per year. Actually my statement would still be true if America losses 3 more Tanks in the next few days. Of course I hope this does not happen but I am just saying...
OMG WTF is does this mean, and I quote "The loss of the T-72 is due to the fact that it is the most militant and effective tank for today, for which it was created.
" The T-72 is the most militant and effective tank for today, for which it was created, yet it has lost every battle with any M1 Abrams Tanks it has encountered. If the T-72 is so EFFECTIVE, your words not mine, then WHY have so many be DESTROYED; NOT to return to BATTLE???? Tell me what Russian Vehicle has only lost less than 600???? NONE, that's how many... The T-72 was a good tank back in the day, up until the M1 Abrams was introduced into Battle.
Thousands of Russian Tanks and various other Vehicles have been destroyed easily by America and her Allies during the past 17+ years that we are not able to keep count. I am sure you BIASED MEDIA tells you that the T-72 is the most widely produced Russian Tank and because there are so many all over the world is the reason SO MANY HAVE BEEN DESTROYED. If the Job of the T-72 is to run the M1 Abrams Tanks OUT OF AMMO then sad to say this will NOT WORK. The Russian T-34 may have Run various German Tanks out of Ammo but America is NOT GERMANY and our Supply Lines RULE THE DAY... America learned from WWII to NOT EVER leave your Tanks without SUPPLY.
Russian attempted to do what America does when it upgrades the M1 and developed the T-90 on top of the Aging T-72. Yes the Chassis is the same on the two Tanks and only the Turret has been improved; a bit. The T-14 is a Joke and will not see combat any time soon. I can not stress this enough; do your own research and STOP using BING. It's not worth my time to sit here and bash you all day because I have other things to do. I do feel sorry for the Russian People as a whole because I have no idea what it's like to live in a world where you are TOLD rather than be able to FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF.
Each and every single one of those 553 heavily damaged M1 Tanks have been fully restored and now back on active duty. Even the 14 Lost Tanks were recovered and some have been restored. The T-72 is nothing like the M1 and that is a FACT. The M1 is superior in EVERY WAY POSSIBLE and that is a FACT not my Opinion.
I will say this about the Russian People, you are a Proud People and very Diligent in everything you do. But you are also a CONTROLLED PEOPLE and worse yet don't even realize it. Russia would have fallen during WWII had America and her Allies not joined the War Effort and rendered Aid to Russia. Yes Russia and Germany did enter what have become known as the Russian German Nonaggression Pact. Don't take my word for it, here's the LINK:
www.google.com/search?q=Russian+German+Non+Aggression+Pact.&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS824US824&oq=Russian+German+Non+Aggression+Pact.&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, also known as the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Hitler-Stalin Pact, or the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, was a neutrality pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939 by foreign ministers Joachim von Ribbentrop and Vyacheslav Molotov, respectively.
Of course you won't have access to this information but others will and can see for themselves... Take care of yourself Mate... Cheers...
@@cybercapri
I have more confidence in the initial intelligence and technical reports, publicistic fiction does not interest me. You can repost any propaganda, it doesn't change the facts and history.
In Iraq there were about 200 T-72M delivered from the USSR, more than 800 licensed copies of nightmare quality set Poland, when plans Sadama and the Soviet Union broke up, ammunition was also bought those that were available(China), most of the tanks were either copies of the Chinese t-54 or Museum exhibits), the majority were simply abandoned because Iraq lost even before the fighting began, Iraq bought wholesale, costs the primitive clan system... any fortress can be taken with a donkey Laden with gold.
"Iraq received 152 M1A1 Abrams tanks from the US. The us side supplied the new Iraqi army with the first 140 m1a1m tanks (modified M1A1 from availability) from August 2010 to February 2011 under an agreement of August 2008 with a total cost of $ 2.16 billion. In 2013, six additional m1a1m tanks were delivered to Iraq, and in February 2015, six more M1A1 tanks were delivered to compensate for the losses. M1a1m tanks were equipped with four tank regiments of the 9th armored division-the most "heavy" connection of the new Iraqi army - the 1st and 2nd tank regiments in the 34th brigade and the 3rd and 4th tank regiments in the 35th brigade of the division. The staff of the tank regiment is 35 tanks-two tanks in the management of the regiment and 11 tanks in three tank companies (in each company three platoons of three tanks plus two tanks in the management of the company).
According to a recent publication by the Iraqi newspaper Al Ghad Press, 60 Abrams tanks of the Iraqi army have been disabled during the fighting against the forces of the Islamic State in Mosul and are now in need of rehabilitation (it is unclear whether these include irretrievably lost tanks)."
T-72 is the most massive tank of our time and it performs the work that was designed, even exceeding expectations. Syria showed it.
The t-90 is the best-selling tank today, India, Algeria .... it's fact. They are many, they are available and reliable.
Non-aggression Pact was concluded between the USSR and Germany... the latest after all European countries. This was the only option not to start a war immediately. Everyone else just gave up, but not the USSR.
All that you have written either an outright lie or nonsense.
@@elusive6119 I see where you're going with this one, avoid and refuse to answer, seems to be your ploy... I was not aware that the US sold Abrams Tanks to Iraq but now that I've researched it I see they were not sold updated Vehicles but rather older versions. The sales were also to be to the forces fighting Terror yet when some vehicles ended up in the hands of the Terror Groups America STOPPED the Maintenance Program for those vehicles. This address the part where you say "now in need of rehabilitation." In doing so it rendered those vehicles useless. No vehicle training was included so needless to say just because they had the best Tank in the World without the ability to properly operate it, said tank would easily fail. I will also say that the reason that a lot of T-72's fail is due to lack of crew training. Bottom line when the T-72 has faced the M1 it has lost regardless of Crew Training in either vehicle.
You seem to be stuck on some sort of "THE BEST TANK" is the "ONE MOST SOLD" when that is nothing but Bullshit. America does not sell it's tanks to just anybody. Yes I was surprised to learn they sold any at all; so there I do stand corrected. Just because Russia Sells the T-72 does not mean it's the BEST TANK in the WORLD; that is nothing more than PROPAGANDA. High Sales does not mean BEST TANK, it just means HIGH SALES because there are NO OTHER OPTIONS. If you give anyone the choice between a T-72 or the Latest Abrams for free not one single person would choose the T-72. Well, you would choose the T-72 because your mind is controlled by your Media/Propaganda, but other than YOU no one else would choose the T-72.
Granted the T-72 is a good tank and against the M-60 will probably win more times then not. But then again it should since it was developed some 20 years after the M-60 so obviously it should be a better vehicle. What you fail to realize is just how deadly the Abrams Tank is when in the hands of American Soldiers. Yes when the Iraq's had possession of those M1's they lost them because they had no clue how to properly use them.
Russia is FORCED to Export the T-72 to keep it's economy alive. You fail to realize just how much Russian Imports from America in the form of Wheat alone. The Russian People would die of starvation if not for America's Wheat and that is a FACT, feel free to Google it. Russia relies on America for a lot more than it allows it's people to know; but of course you will dismiss this as propaganda but it's a fact none the less.
I noticed you failed to address what I asked about Russia Winning WWII alone. Oh, right, that part did not make sense to you. I have a few Russian Friends, much younger than me as I was born Jan 1962 and they were born in the late 80's early 90's. They asked me a question one day that was a bit perplexing to say the least, simply who won WWII??? My reply was your joking right, America and her allies. NOPE, according to them Russia alone won WWII and America and her Allies helped a little bit. Quickly I replied again, YOU'RE JOKING... No, those two were raised to believe that Russia alone won WWII and that there is no such thing as the Russian German Pact.
So I will ask again, do you believe that Russia alone won WWII???
@@cybercapri The USSR won the great Patriotic War. For the USSR and its people there was only its own war, the great Holy war. It is strange if someone here thought otherwise because Germany suffered 80% of irretrievable losses during the war with the USSR. The second world war is perceived as something passing against this background. 27 million dead in 4 years and a few years after, with only 17 million soldiers.
Ah Yes there was still Japan... which the USSR broke on the continent for 2 weeks, about a month took local battles. Japan lost 1.5 million soldiers in those two weeks.
For citizens of the USSR this war was a personal matter. Therefore, the second world war is considered only through the prism of the great War.
The Pact WAS, but not allied, exactly the same documents signed with Germany and other countries, and the United States even continued to trade with Germany until about the middle of the war. The Covenant affirmed the status of territories and the delimitation of spheres of influence to avoid conflict.
Russia and the Soviet Union is a DIFFERENT country, it is not correct to consider Russia as the USSR, only smaller.
With regards to T-72M (export), Yes it is T-72M, not T-72A or T-72B. Export versions were designed to fight the T-55 or M-60. Had combined armor, system of fire control, protection against weapons of mass destruction and more. It was simply UNNECESSARY for them, besides they had to pay for it.
In the 80's T-72B had every chance of winning over M1A1, after already unlikely. T-72B can not break out of 105mm even uranium projectile. And 120mm is very hard М289. T-72B3 is already protected from A3. It's more complicated than it looks.
I'm probably gonna say something that's gonna sound weird. T-72B was outdated in the mid-80s, he was to be replaced by a better "prototype 187", not" 188 " which became the T-90.
The t-90 was a step back! Due to the lack of funds and was originally intended only for export(India), and in Russia was not purchased EN masse, and the funds were applied to the restoration of the program 188, 195 and 299.
The volume of exports is clearly an indicator of success, at least so believe in the United States... economists. It's complicated.
the us is now the first in terms of arms exports, but if Russia sells weapons it is bad at once
double standards?) for the us, because Russia is a serious competitor.
The economy is primary, the problem between the United States and Russia is primarily in the economy, but rather in its inefficiency in Russia, and the unsecured economy and the us giant debt. This is the root of the problem, not ideology.
Until recently, Russia did not supply the T-72B1MS for export, only small series for some buyers who wanted the T-90, but could not pay for it. They only paid for the repair and installation of new systems. Such tanks will be effective against all targets, except for the latest Leopard-2A7 or M1a2ser2/ it is more than satisfied customers who have to fight with Leo-2A4, T-72M, T-72A or M1A1. Those who want to pay more for the T-90 and more advanced versions, such as Algeria or India.
So the main thing is not a tank, and crew training. In addition, the T-72 is initially optimized for maneuvering and supporting infantry rather than anti-tank functions.
Yes the T-72A or old T-72B lose M1A2. But T80ue1 or T-72B3M... no, they have their own characteristics and they are approximately equal to M1A2.
M1A2 is just as outdated in the 90s as the T-90. And the more old Leo-2A4 or T-72B, their use is due only to their gigantic number.
Old... But not obsolete
(I hate it anyway)
Why do you hate it?
@@homiespaghetti1522 Don't like its shape and name. I also find its Desert Camo horrendous and its barrel way too short.
@@yoski203 Someone got triggered.
Yo ski Why so salty? It’s his opinion. I don’t like the Abrams, as well.
I hate it because it's used by the bad guys, like how the Sherman and T-34 were used by the bad guys in WW2
Thank you so much for that well deserved jab at robot voice videos.
Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire, and two were purposely destroyed to prevent capture after being damaged. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness.
Main armament: M1: 105 mm L/52 M68A1 rifled gun (55 rounds); M1A1: 120 mm L/44 ...
Mass: M1: 60 short tons (54 t); M1A1: 63 short tons (57 t); M1A1 SA: 67.6 short tons ...
Wars: Persian Gulf War; War in Afghanistan; Iraq War; Egyptian revolution of 2011; Ir...
Ground clearance: M1, M1A1: 0.48 m (1 ft 7 in); M1A2: 0.43 m (1 ft 5 in)
This is what I found out and I have another one