I served in this conflict and one of the scariest technology that does not get much of a conversation is the ability for attack, helicopters and tanks to communicate and send targeting information to the tank. The Bradleys good also send targeting information to attack. We’re a tank doesn’t even need to see what are you shooting at that is incredibly effective and suicidal to go up against.
I can tell you that the Abrams armor composition looks like a massive spiderweb on top of many other spider webs from the inside of the armor. I heard that from a tanker when I was in the Army. Now I can’t confirm it, but I believe it. Correction: more like a fustercluck of spiderwebs all over the place
I do believe the Americans use the chobham armour used in the Challenger II, as they saw how effective it was at defending against RPG and tank fire during the Iraq war. I dare say the US has probably expanded on the chobham armour so kindly shared from the UK army. From what I know a challenger 2 was hit with more than 70 rpg’s and one Milan ATG and survived, it was towed back to camp and back up and in service within a day, hence why I think the US military wanted to use this armour so much. US & UK brothers in arms ❤.
Shermans could still knock out German tanks during WWII though, they weren't completely defenseless or anything. Not all tank destroyer doctrine from the U.S. was effective either, so there's that.
It's a meme. Every gamer knows Zelda is a girl. This meme started from a common misunderstanding over 20 years ago. I remember playing Ocarina of Time back in 98 and one of my cousins saying this exact line.
@@FunkyMunkey00_the Canadians are worse than the Russians with the way the government is treating the military. And it is biased against the Russians when the French tank Lercht has the same ammunition feeding system as the T-72
50:15 i realize it's probably next to impossible to get all the details right about everything in a 3 hour video, especially when you consider different ways of explaining/ presenting information, but a sabot round uses that needle like projectile, not to break into pieces as you described, but to actually put so much energy into such a small space that it actually vaporizes the needle, turning it into plasma which is so hot it literally just bores through metal, gaps, ERA like it's not even there and continues on its way, until (and this part is a guess) it reaches the inside of the tank where it has enough space to diffuse and cool down to just plain old molten metal. Yea, very nasty stuff indeed.
Modern tanks vs WWII tanks- see also Harry Turtledove's "Worldwar" book series. A reptile race with modern-equivalent military tech invades Earth during WWII.
Yet it was the most versatile? Used the most? Proficient in literally anything if you had the right variant? Use to love the t34/72 personally, do some research
The US had severe limitiations in shipping tanks. Weight, size, spares, logistics. You cant just send a tank back ovseas to be repaired like the Germans or Soviets did. They had the luxury of rail. @@laurakastrup
If you were to pit a Sherman against an Abrams the worst it could do is leave a scratch. The Abrams' chobham composite armor would barely have a dent, if even that.
the question is how many scenarios would you have to run through for a WW2 tank to even get off the first shot? an abrams sent back to WW2 in the wrong hands could change history if the timing were right.
Hmmm... that'd be like comparing a house cat 🐈 to a tiger 🐅 1 v 1 fight 😄 The Tiger WILL WIN every time with little to no effort. Modern tanks would OWN WW2 tanks! Not even the Panzer VIII Maus could stand up to any modern tank!
The grey Abrams X is a technology demonstrator . The M1A2 SEPv3 is the most modern Abrams in service. No Abrams sold to other nations get the US armour package. That is the reason it was removed. The Leopard II armour depends on the armour package. There are various packages offered.
@@mannyrubio2881 yeah that’s the joke a lot of ppl think link is zelda so he just threw it into that sequence of questions. if u can’t tell it’s a joke then idk. plus this dude does a lot of research on various things im positive he knows who zelda is.
The chobbom armour was a British invention that the British tanks have been using for years and Britain only gave the Americans the armour design not that long ago it makes me laugh that every American seems to think that they invented it the armour design is ahead of its time and it will be used for many years to come
Nobody said that the Americans did invent it. The video said that the M1 was the first deployed tank to use it, which is absolutely correct. Our Challenger 1 wasn't in service until '83, three years after the M1 went into service and deployed to places like West Germany during the Cold War for NATO exercises. Prior to Chally 1 coming on stream though, we were still rolling around in Chieftains with their Stillbrew armour. I don't know what your definition of 'not that long ago' is either, but the Americans were enquiring and evaluating Chobham from us as far back as the 1960's. We don't operate Challenger 1 with its Chobham armour anymore and Chally 2 uses Dorchester armour for its hull, which, whilst an upgraded second generation variant of Chobham, is different enough to be considered its own thing. Even that will be dropped for Chally 3 in about three or four years though, which is going to use a brand new modular armour system, comprised of Epsom external armour and Farnham hull 'inner' armour. The M1 with Chobham will be around for a while yet, but it's a couple of generations behind the latest compositions and getting pretty long in the tooth now.
@@bigal3055- the video said that is was the first tank deployed with this armour which is incorrect, as the British had deployed their Challenger 1 with this armour well before the M1A2. The video is somewhat US bias in displaying the facts correctly. FYI I’m British and don’t mean any hard feelings to the US as we are your Brothers in arms ❤.
@Pieces93 The M1 was in active service by 1980 and as stated, deployed to West Germany not long after. Challenger 1 didn't come into service until 1983. Chobham was intended for FV4601, but that project was delayed and subsequently scrapped in favour of Challenger. The M1A1 and M1A2 variants of the Abrams did indeed come after the M1, but the M1 was still built on the Chobham (or Burlington, as it was coded in the US) composite hull armour scheme, was still in service 3 years before Challenger and was still deployed into active service with the NATO combined forces in Europe whilst Challenger was still being developed, built and tested. No hard feelings taken, seeing as I'm British too.
@@bigal3055- fair enough, I will Concede on this 😅. It annoys me tho that they could not once ever mention that it was British designed and made… they still very much allude to it being US invented with out saying it. I still think this video is very heavily US bias either way.
@@Pieces93 No worries mate. In the spirit of conceding points made though, the video narration referring to the Abrams as the M1A2, as if it was the first and only version, is indeed sloppy.
If we are talking M1 Abraham vs Legion, remember the Legions did actually face off against the “tank” of the ancient world, elephants. They did it both under our favourite megalomaniac, Julius Caesar and earlier under Scipio Africanous Julius faced off against Pompey the Great, in the civil war, who was supposed by Juba of the Numidians, a North African kingdom that possibly is either in modern day Algeria or Morocco, location unknown. From Caesar’s own account of the battle of Thapsus, modern day Tunisia, 60 war elephants participated, while a few of them were killed, most of them were scared off, as a fair few of them were recently captured and not yet fully trained under Numidian control I highly doubt a bunch of guys with spears and short swords can “scare” off an Abrahams. I figure a well trained American crew would be more fascinated than scared of them. Scipio’s encounter with elephants is less well documented- he didn’t have a habit of bringing his nephew with him who was a good historian (the nephew I’m referring to is the man who would become Augustus, Octavius) Also one of the legions biggest problems is that they’re not very good at adapting quickly, see also Hannibal Barca’s rampage for 6 years before they started adapting to his tactics, or when they straight up walked head first into an ambush despite knowing it was there in Germany
Saying that enemies will get poisoned by being near the Abrams. How about our troops inside or marching with the tank are they not poisoned? Or are you telling me, that our nation invented radioactivity that can distinguish between goodies & baddies?
The first tank, built by the british, was cuboid in structure, with its tracks along the bottom. Without imagining it might soon be a rhomboid, with enormous tracks looping around all of it. As a way of nameing it as to misleding they who were not to be told, it looked like a water tank, that was how it was described.
The thing that bugs me about this is when he said the Sherman had a good if not great gun when in reality they got outgunned almost the entire war. The 75mm gun they used was a short barrel and hardly penetrated German tanks or armor. When they say in movies they have to hit the back of the German tanks to knock them out they truly meant that most the time. It wasn’t until the longer barrel Sherman’s came out that they had a true cannon worth bragging about. Other than that great video!
The 75mm gun of the sherman was good for its purposes. It's purpose was not to engage enemy heavy tanks but its targets are bunkers and infantry which it did its job very well. 75 mm guns of the sherman has a very potent HE rounds compared to the long barelled one (76mm) so it's more effective in engaging infantry and destroying bunkers
You can always tell who gets their WW2 history from pop culture. The zippo lighter comment about Sherman’s wasn’t an issue unique to the Sherman. Early panzers and early Sherman’s both faced this issue until wet ammo storage became a thing. Not to mention, 85% of all German armor produced in the war were of the Pz I-IV variety which Sherman’s could handle. They only couldn’t handle the heavy German designs which isn’t a surprise considering that’s why the Germans designed them lol. Once wet ammo storage became a thing the Sherman had the highest crew survivability of any tank in the war. And was mechanical far more reliable than a Pz IV or T34
infographic forgot the British 17 pounder ATG Sherman and American 76.5mm ATG on the Easy 8 Sherman even the 75mm M4 Sherman killed Tiger and Panther Tanks, Michael Wittmann and his crew was likely killed by a Canadian 75mm Gun Sherman Tank.
Not to mention I believe they called them Ronsons, NOT zippos. At least I believe the Americans used that name. Unrelated but when I used to smoke my Ronson lighter was far more reliable than my zippo.
Absolutely funny to hear the comparison of the T90 to the Abrams. When this video was put out, everyone was drinking the Russian kool-aid. Now we know with the war in Ukraine, the T90 is and always has been a paper tiger. There's nothing Russia has that compares to western arms.
@MrChekaMan Maybe, we don't know if their nukes are as good as western ones. Not that I would want to find out. We have seen every single battle weapon of Russia exposed as not up go the hype. They are even hiding their so called "stealth fighter" so not to be embarrassed getting shot down. Maybe their delivery methods could be easily intercepted.
@@MrChekaMan they might not even have many of those functioning, or at least not the numbers they boast. tritium decays and plays a hefty financial burden in the up keep of modern nuclear warheads. it's not a gamble to take lightly or "test", but it's not illogical to believe corruption has placed those funds "elsewhere" amongst Russian hands and that many amongst their ranks understand the united states has no interest in invading a heavily ideologically glued community that is subject to harsh winters and has heavy infrastructure already in place. little to farm and much debris to remove after a war. its iron, uranium, titanium, and natural gas are "valuable" resources. but not needed. it wouldn't be a war supported by the people unless provoked by essentially an invasion of NATO. the modern doctrine is to let the rat starve in the shed it inhabits and not provoke it by cornering it. many of the oligarchs and warlords see it, and lost hope generations ago, hence the greed and corruption to line one's own pockets. despite it being their own downfall. all Russia truly has possibly ready for combat is 80-90's spec equipment, maybe a couple hundred nukes declared non-threat due to modern defenses, and a sad bag of hopeless dreams. Putin wanted to join NATO when he first took power, little did he understand what that meant for our largest industry, deeming it impossible, as we have greed of our own and many, many customers who fear Russia.
I'll bet their nukes program is as broken as their regular military. Imagine the money one could steal from such a top secret program that nobody ever sees working. I'm sure they have nukes alright, but run it like any other strongman army shitshow component. It could only ever cause accidents and is in no shape to protect against or attack our thinking-nation's capabilities.
That's exactly what it is DEPLETED URANIUM what is it you find funny? It's not a bullet shaped round and has no explosives. It's a dart shaped missile packed inside a 2 pc. polymer sabot that comes out of the barrel over 4000 feet per second. The speed and kinetic energy alone produces something called spall (shrapnel) and pulverizes everyone in the tank. The depleted just means most of the radioactivity has been removed. He didn't explain that part very good. Uranium is harder than any steel. You can actually buy the deactivated darts from some of these catalogs or online. They say that they're safe but I'm not too sure.
The US used B-17 bombers to destroy German tanks. But very rarely and not without difficulty. Mainly the Normandy, Cobra breakout against German armored units. This was overkill but it was a vital attack against well prepared German positions. US WW2 tank destroyers actually had less armor than Sherman's. These Tiger killers used speed, mobility and firepower to hunt German tanks. Though successful the WW2 US tank destroyer concept was cancelled. Sherman tanks were well used against T-34 tanks in Korea. And Israeli Sherman's destroyed T-55 tanks in 1973. The Abrams is a multirole tank. And the AH-64 is now an excellent tank destroyer for support. The Bradley is also an excellent antitank system with guns, missiles and dismounted infantry anti-tank teams. But more vulnerable than the Abrams. And there are a number of other antitank options for the US. The Bradley and Apache have multirole capabilities. But anti tank capability was a designed capability from the start during the Cold War. WW2 US tank destroyers did take losses but were generally able to destroy more German tanks. They were intended to be rapidly deployed defensive units to stop German tank breakthroughs. But they usually ended up in a more offensive role as German units were in defense or retreat. This meant Sherman's usually had to attack prepared German positions and ambushes. Once ammo storage on Sherman tanks was improved the risk of fires was greatly reduced. Sherman tank loss and crew loss rates were far lower than T-34s. The Sherman's were war winning tanks. 4000 served in the USSR. It was far more reliable than poor quality WW2 T-34 tanks. After WW2 the quality of T-34s and there features were much better. They could all be fitted with radios. And better quality material and workmanship. Most WW2 T-34s were lost. About 44 000. Compared to 12 000 Sherman's lost in WW2. All Sherman tanks that saw combat had to be transported by trains and ships. So they had to fit into regular transport ships loaded by cranes. When it was designed they had no specialist tank landing ships. This limited its size and weight. The US lacked engines and gear boxes for an effective heavy tank. The Pershing was not reliable. And by the wars end the Pershing was a medium tank and not a heavy. Perishing's were retired long before Sherman's. Only a handful of Perishing's saw combat in WW2. And in Korea the Sherman's were often preferred. A great feature of the Sherman was its generous turret ring. This allowed increasingly larger guns. The very effective German 75mm Panther gun was developed by the French after WW2. The Israelis fitted the French 75mm guns to its Sherman's. As US guns were not available. And used well in 1973. So the Sherman deserves a better reputation. Research on US tank unit crew losses shows they were generally much lower than infantry casualties. Says Chieftain, War Thunder.. Champion of the Sherman.
The Battle of Kursk did not involve 23,000 tanks. More like 2,300 - 5000 ish. So I'm assuming that was just a typo. You would think someone would've fact checked that & been like: "Man I dunno; 23,000 tanks doesn't quite sound right...". Lol
"Panzer" means "armour"... Panzerkampfwagen... armoured battle vehicle... what you're talking about is either the Panther Panzer or the Tiger Panzer... so, the modern Leopard tank is also a "Panzer" Love your videos, BTW
Im also not for sure about the shermans using a direct oil or fuel injection for a smoke screen like the soviet tanks with diesel engines used the shermans used White phos rounds and smoke canisters launchers like german tanks used which im not certain of about the canisters but im positive the Shermans used willy p rounds for concealment smoke
Did you not watch the video? Or do you think being purposely obtuse and pedantic makes you seem intelligent? Theres only one tank produced in such numbers by Germany during WW2, the Panzer IV, which you'd know if you ACTUALLY knew as much about tanks as you seemingly want people to believe.
The Germans didn’t nickname the Sherman tank “zippos” because most Germans probably hadn’t ever seen a zippo lighter. Instead, they called the relatively easily destroyed Shermans “Ronsons”, which was the lighter brand they would’ve been familiar with and who’s motto was “one strike and it lights”. Not exactly a compliment. Why say “zippo” instead? Given the state of education in the US, I guess I can’t blame you 😆
The t34 was not relaible, mobile or resilient it shatterd the second it was hit, it had huge reliabilety ishoos and jast not good expensive anrilaible and stupitly made, it was the worst. If you want more info i wood wach laserpig
Going on a liquid diet, while in combat is something that’s encouraging because quite frankly, a liquid diet cuts down on the amount of debris that has to be thrown out of the tank
I believe The Zippo was a catch-phrase started as the Sherman lighter. It was embellished as The Zippo so that Congress would fund wet rack stowage and other modifications
Sherman with the derp gun. Yin can with a artillery gun was dangerous. But German tanks were simply the best. But one red phosphorus flare down the barrel and the Abrams is decommissioned
The Abrahams was not the first tank to feature Chobham armour. The first tank to feature Chobham Armour was the British Challenger tank. Even a tertiary google search prooves this is the case.
This account spreads so much misinformation, one has to wonder if it's from pure neglect or is it intentional. I watch them these days just to count the inaccuracies in the videos and get a laugh from it.
I only know of Leopards lost to mines, not moskovite tanks. Not saying it could never happen, but I don't see even their super-duper T-90 standing a chance against that German kitty.
@@argumentativelysound2001 russia is now on the offensive and is slowly regaining ground, cope all you want but that won't change the fact that russia will win
The Russlans aren't the only ones to fire ATGMs from main battle tank guns. Israel got such a missile as well. It's called Lahat, has a range of 8 km (5 miles) and is available in a 120 and 105 mm version.
Sure..... let's compare a tank from the forties with one from at least 30 years later... It's like comparing a civil war hand crank gatling gun to the 30mm gat found on the A-10.
And just a few days ago, nearly one month from this video, another T-90 got ambushed by two Bradley's, which isn't meant to take on tanks. What a joke.
42:55 go remoute control and use only ia if the tank go offline or to assit the pilot like he cheat client in he simalar way to video game unfortunatly for casual player, this will not be he instantaniouse change whe but not so far from it whis some experminent in Ukraine on both side with smaller scale drone and some wapon builder in America
If im not mistaken didn’t russia win with a fraction of their military power? Yes they took a while but the US had to spend billions too keep Ukraine going. also when i say win i mean they took the region they were going after. You are talking like they are powerless but they are a huge threat and we should take caution with them
Please tell me your just joking! The Russia T90 is lack luster with no good quality compared to the Abram’s and the Abram’s should be number 1, it’s called experience on the battle field and the challenger has changed it riffled gun due to lack of control and range and the weapons it can’t fire! Your buggin If I’m in a tank battle please give me the Abram’s right this second! It’s the first thing I’m going for, the new Sep2 version of course!
I don't know where the guy's getting his information on the best tanks of the world. First and second spot winners are not the French or China . I would have to say Israel, israel would be number one and the second would the Abram a2 or -e3😅🎉
"Button house"... That first building should be called a survival shack. What a misleading introduction. Without a shower, that isn't a house, it's nothing more than an extra backyard office/room for the rich who already have a real house and large property, like the second building. The idea of renting that out to anyone should be criminal. But these "houses" would be a nice luxury addition to a property admittedly.
I served in this conflict and one of the scariest technology that does not get much of a conversation is the ability for attack, helicopters and tanks to communicate and send targeting information to the tank. The Bradleys good also send targeting information to attack. We’re a tank doesn’t even need to see what are you shooting at that is incredibly effective and suicidal to go up against.
It's crazy to see a modern conflict like in Ukraine with reverting to 30 year old plus technology being carried out
@@garrettgiuffre7298 If you crane pad, modern weapons from the very beginning, there’s a possibility that this war never would’ve started
@@ByepolarchaosYes, if "you crane" pad pad ma' dern weapons from the beg inning, it never wooda even lass ted this long.
@@Byepolarchaos I thank you for your service❤️
Next week: stick vs ballistic missile, who would win?
Depends how close you can get.
stick wins troll
Idk its some good sticks out there
How dare you attack The Infographics Show!
nah, it's "world war one artillery vs Drone Strike"
Infographics definitely gets government funding lol
How dare you attack The Infographics Show!
Mans talking like the US isn’t THE top world military superpower
@sumerbc7409 you a pro israel zionist shill Or somthing?
"Brief, but meteoric career" is up there with, "Rapid, unscheduled, disassembly"...
😂😂😂
I can tell you that the Abrams armor composition looks like a massive spiderweb on top of many other spider webs from the inside of the armor. I heard that from a tanker when I was in the Army. Now I can’t confirm it, but I believe it.
Correction: more like a fustercluck of spiderwebs all over the place
I do believe the Americans use the chobham armour used in the Challenger II, as they saw how effective it was at defending against RPG and tank fire during the Iraq war. I dare say the US has probably expanded on the chobham armour so kindly shared from the UK army. From what I know a challenger 2 was hit with more than 70 rpg’s and one Milan ATG and survived, it was towed back to camp and back up and in service within a day, hence why I think the US military wanted to use this armour so much.
US & UK brothers in arms ❤.
Shermans could still knock out German tanks during WWII though, they weren't completely defenseless or anything. Not all tank destroyer doctrine from the U.S. was effective either, so there's that.
Lookup the Firefly Sherman.
@@stevedow2740that is British mate
@@anonymoushunter9808the hull and the design is made by america the british just strapped a good gun onto it
@@apolcow oh I know. But I mean I refer to it as the British version due to its gun 😂
The Sherman tank won World War II. That’s a fact.
Great compilation! Learned a lot 🤘🏻 Gotta say tho… “Sabot” is definitely pronounced “Say-bow”..
What if Zelda was a girl? Am I missing something
It's a meme. Every gamer knows Zelda is a girl.
This meme started from a common misunderstanding over 20 years ago.
I remember playing Ocarina of Time back in 98 and one of my cousins saying this exact line.
Me too! Very badly 😉😅
I thought Zelda was the characters name......
😂
Guy obviously doesn't play any Zelda games. Link is the main character, he's a guy. Zelda is the princess.
I love how unbiased you are with the russians 😏
Who cares
@@FunkyMunkey00_ Was I talking to you? No.
@@89schofe oooooh. Haha
@@FunkyMunkey00_ Vatnik
@@FunkyMunkey00_the Canadians are worse than the Russians with the way the government is treating the military.
And it is biased against the Russians when the French tank Lercht has the same ammunition feeding system as the T-72
50:15 i realize it's probably next to impossible to get all the details right about everything in a 3 hour video, especially when you consider different ways of explaining/ presenting information, but a sabot round uses that needle like projectile, not to break into pieces as you described, but to actually put so much energy into such a small space that it actually vaporizes the needle, turning it into plasma which is so hot it literally just bores through metal, gaps, ERA like it's not even there and continues on its way, until (and this part is a guess) it reaches the inside of the tank where it has enough space to diffuse and cool down to just plain old molten metal. Yea, very nasty stuff indeed.
Modern tanks vs WWII tanks- see also Harry Turtledove's "Worldwar" book series. A reptile race with modern-equivalent military tech invades Earth during WWII.
Abrams looks at Sherman and says: Granddaddy?? Is that you?
U for sure was in a army sir
The two worst enemies of the Sherman. The Pacific and the Atlantic
Yet it was the most versatile? Used the most? Proficient in literally anything if you had the right variant? Use to love the t34/72 personally, do some research
Tbf that seems to be the worst enemy of any land based vehicle… the ocean.
Tanks are generally not rated on their buoyancy
@@laurakastrup fair enough
The US had severe limitiations in shipping tanks. Weight, size, spares, logistics. You cant just send a tank back ovseas to be repaired like the Germans or Soviets did. They had the luxury of rail.
@@laurakastrup
If you were to pit a Sherman against an Abrams the worst it could do is leave a scratch.
The Abrams' chobham composite armor would barely have a dent, if even that.
it would chip its paint
If you left the abrams with no ammo or fuel, the sherman could probably take out the radiator or maybe the tracks or roadwheels
it could pen it from the side or the back of the turret.
Not a Brad Pitt was driving it.
@@Toddnesbitt Right. The Fury plot armor 🤣🤣🤣
the question is how many scenarios would you have to run through for a WW2 tank to even get off the first shot? an abrams sent back to WW2 in the wrong hands could change history if the timing were right.
Hmmm... that'd be like comparing a house cat 🐈 to a tiger 🐅 1 v 1 fight 😄
The Tiger WILL WIN every time with little to no effort. Modern tanks would OWN WW2 tanks!
Not even the Panzer VIII Maus could stand up to any modern tank!
The grey Abrams X is a technology demonstrator . The M1A2 SEPv3 is the most modern Abrams in service.
No Abrams sold to other nations get the US armour package. That is the reason it was removed.
The Leopard II armour depends on the armour package. There are various packages offered.
Zelda is the princess of the legend of Zelda. Link, (but your hero can be named anything you want)is the swordsmen set to save the land.
i think he knows that, thats the joke.
@mammon4489 how do you know? Just curious... it didn't seem like a joke and lots of ppl think link is called Zelda.
@@mannyrubio2881 yeah that’s the joke a lot of ppl think link is zelda so he just threw it into that sequence of questions. if u can’t tell it’s a joke then idk. plus this dude does a lot of research on various things im positive he knows who zelda is.
@@mannyrubio2881asking “what if Zelda was a girl” is one of the most classic examples of satire
The chobbom armour was a British invention that the British tanks have been using for years and Britain only gave the Americans the armour design not that long ago it makes me laugh that every American seems to think that they invented it the armour design is ahead of its time and it will be used for many years to come
Nobody said that the Americans did invent it. The video said that the M1 was the first deployed tank to use it, which is absolutely correct. Our Challenger 1 wasn't in service until '83, three years after the M1 went into service and deployed to places like West Germany during the Cold War for NATO exercises. Prior to Chally 1 coming on stream though, we were still rolling around in Chieftains with their Stillbrew armour. I don't know what your definition of 'not that long ago' is either, but the Americans were enquiring and evaluating Chobham from us as far back as the 1960's.
We don't operate Challenger 1 with its Chobham armour anymore and Chally 2 uses Dorchester armour for its hull, which, whilst an upgraded second generation variant of Chobham, is different enough to be considered its own thing. Even that will be dropped for Chally 3 in about three or four years though, which is going to use a brand new modular armour system, comprised of Epsom external armour and Farnham hull 'inner' armour. The M1 with Chobham will be around for a while yet, but it's a couple of generations behind the latest compositions and getting pretty long in the tooth now.
@@bigal3055- the video said that is was the first tank deployed with this armour which is incorrect, as the British had deployed their Challenger 1 with this armour well before the M1A2. The video is somewhat US bias in displaying the facts correctly. FYI I’m British and don’t mean any hard feelings to the US as we are your Brothers in arms ❤.
@Pieces93 The M1 was in active service by 1980 and as stated, deployed to West Germany not long after. Challenger 1 didn't come into service until 1983. Chobham was intended for FV4601, but that project was delayed and subsequently scrapped in favour of Challenger. The M1A1 and M1A2 variants of the Abrams did indeed come after the M1, but the M1 was still built on the Chobham (or Burlington, as it was coded in the US) composite hull armour scheme, was still in service 3 years before Challenger and was still deployed into active service with the NATO combined forces in Europe whilst Challenger was still being developed, built and tested.
No hard feelings taken, seeing as I'm British too.
@@bigal3055- fair enough, I will
Concede on this 😅. It annoys me tho that they could not once ever mention that it was British designed and made… they still very much allude to it being US invented with out saying it. I still think this video is very heavily US bias either way.
@@Pieces93 No worries mate. In the spirit of conceding points made though, the video narration referring to the Abrams as the M1A2, as if it was the first and only version, is indeed sloppy.
Abrams not doing so good in Ukraine. Sitting ducks to drones, same with the leopards, and Bradleys
You guys at the infographics should check up on your sources and biases
you should give a real argumeent for them to notice
They are the most biased Channel on UA-cam towards NATO
Jak do elaborate. I can hardly wait
@@astrono1960they do get alot wrong, they do very basic research. This is welcome to military tech. All base knowledge and some wrong
Wut do u mean
If we are talking M1 Abraham vs Legion, remember the Legions did actually face off against the “tank” of the ancient world, elephants. They did it both under our favourite megalomaniac, Julius Caesar and earlier under Scipio Africanous
Julius faced off against Pompey the Great, in the civil war, who was supposed by Juba of the Numidians, a North African kingdom that possibly is either in modern day Algeria or Morocco, location unknown. From Caesar’s own account of the battle of Thapsus, modern day Tunisia, 60 war elephants participated, while a few of them were killed, most of them were scared off, as a fair few of them were recently captured and not yet fully trained under Numidian control
I highly doubt a bunch of guys with spears and short swords can “scare” off an Abrahams. I figure a well trained American crew would be more fascinated than scared of them.
Scipio’s encounter with elephants is less well documented- he didn’t have a habit of bringing his nephew with him who was a good historian (the nephew I’m referring to is the man who would become Augustus, Octavius)
Also one of the legions biggest problems is that they’re not very good at adapting quickly, see also Hannibal Barca’s rampage for 6 years before they started adapting to his tactics, or when they straight up walked head first into an ambush despite knowing it was there in Germany
T-14 Aramata is the latest generation of Russian stealth weapon since it is rarely seen.
Very informative
Saying that enemies will get poisoned by being near the Abrams. How about our troops inside or marching with the tank are they not poisoned? Or are you telling me, that our nation invented radioactivity that can distinguish between goodies & baddies?
The first tank, built by the british, was cuboid in structure, with its tracks along the bottom. Without imagining it might soon be a rhomboid, with enormous tracks looping around all of it. As a way of nameing it as to misleding they who were not to be told, it looked like a water tank, that was how it was described.
The thing that bugs me about this is when he said the Sherman had a good if not great gun when in reality they got outgunned almost the entire war. The 75mm gun they used was a short barrel and hardly penetrated German tanks or armor. When they say in movies they have to hit the back of the German tanks to knock them out they truly meant that most the time. It wasn’t until the longer barrel Sherman’s came out that they had a true cannon worth bragging about. Other than that great video!
The 75mm gun of the sherman was good for its purposes. It's purpose was not to engage enemy heavy tanks but its targets are bunkers and infantry which it did its job very well. 75 mm guns of the sherman has a very potent HE rounds compared to the long barelled one (76mm) so it's more effective in engaging infantry and destroying bunkers
What if Zelda was a girl?
😢
You can always tell who gets their WW2 history from pop culture. The zippo lighter comment about Sherman’s wasn’t an issue unique to the Sherman. Early panzers and early Sherman’s both faced this issue until wet ammo storage became a thing. Not to mention, 85% of all German armor produced in the war were of the Pz I-IV variety which Sherman’s could handle. They only couldn’t handle the heavy German designs which isn’t a surprise considering that’s why the Germans designed them lol. Once wet ammo storage became a thing the Sherman had the highest crew survivability of any tank in the war. And was mechanical far more reliable than a Pz IV or T34
infographic forgot the British 17 pounder ATG Sherman and American 76.5mm ATG on the Easy 8 Sherman even the 75mm M4 Sherman killed Tiger and Panther Tanks, Michael Wittmann and his crew was likely killed by a Canadian 75mm Gun Sherman Tank.
Not to mention I believe they called them Ronsons, NOT zippos. At least I believe the Americans used that name. Unrelated but when I used to smoke my Ronson lighter was far more reliable than my zippo.
What about challenger 2 tanks American abrams tank where wearing chobom armer (Dorchester) armer. which was a British invention
Your wrong infographics, the German tanks are hella expensive because Germans needed to buy a lot of premium ammo!
That’s crazy. 3.5 hours of material 👏👏
3.5 hours of BS
Bringing the Pain in a Rainbow of Flavors!
Absolutely funny to hear the comparison of the T90 to the Abrams. When this video was put out, everyone was drinking the Russian kool-aid. Now we know with the war in Ukraine, the T90 is and always has been a paper tiger. There's nothing Russia has that compares to western arms.
@@MrChekaMan you're right, I wasn't thinking about that
@MrChekaMan Maybe, we don't know if their nukes are as good as western ones. Not that I would want to find out. We have seen every single battle weapon of Russia exposed as not up go the hype. They are even hiding their so called "stealth fighter" so not to be embarrassed getting shot down.
Maybe their delivery methods could be easily intercepted.
@@MrChekaMan they might not even have many of those functioning, or at least not the numbers they boast. tritium decays and plays a hefty financial burden in the up keep of modern nuclear warheads. it's not a gamble to take lightly or "test", but it's not illogical to believe corruption has placed those funds "elsewhere" amongst Russian hands and that many amongst their ranks understand the united states has no interest in invading a heavily ideologically glued community that is subject to harsh winters and has heavy infrastructure already in place. little to farm and much debris to remove after a war. its iron, uranium, titanium, and natural gas are "valuable" resources. but not needed. it wouldn't be a war supported by the people unless provoked by essentially an invasion of NATO. the modern doctrine is to let the rat starve in the shed it inhabits and not provoke it by cornering it. many of the oligarchs and warlords see it, and lost hope generations ago, hence the greed and corruption to line one's own pockets. despite it being their own downfall. all Russia truly has possibly ready for combat is 80-90's spec equipment, maybe a couple hundred nukes declared non-threat due to modern defenses, and a sad bag of hopeless dreams. Putin wanted to join NATO when he first took power, little did he understand what that meant for our largest industry, deeming it impossible, as we have greed of our own and many, many customers who fear Russia.
@@MrChekaMan Paper nukes*
I'll bet their nukes program is as broken as their regular military. Imagine the money one could steal from such a top secret program that nobody ever sees working. I'm sure they have nukes alright, but run it like any other strongman army shitshow component. It could only ever cause accidents and is in no shape to protect against or attack our thinking-nation's capabilities.
The last one about the Roman legion vs a modern tank, there’s an entire anime that explains how that would go. Its name is GATE
Is there ever gonna be another episode of I Survived X Days Nuclear War or I Survived X Days of the Invasion?
I hope NOT
Probably one of your best videos. Thanks keep up the good work. I wait for your videos every week!
I thought this was a regular video but it’s a FOUR HOUR VIDEO!?!?!?!?!
Fun fact: the abrams has the same sherman armor on its frontal armor and provides 40mm + of armor
4:10 gotta be a joke, it’s literally called depleted and how would the crew survive if it was accurate?😂😂😂
Right? I'm inclined not to watch the rest of the video if that's the kind of "info" presented throughout.
That's exactly what it is DEPLETED URANIUM what is it you find funny? It's not a bullet shaped round and has no explosives. It's a dart shaped missile packed inside a 2 pc. polymer sabot that comes out of the barrel over 4000 feet per second. The speed and kinetic energy alone produces something called spall (shrapnel) and pulverizes everyone in the tank. The depleted just means most of the radioactivity has been removed. He didn't explain that part very good. Uranium is harder than any steel. You can actually buy the deactivated darts from some of these catalogs or online. They say that they're safe but I'm not too sure.
Literally takes 2 second to think about it 🙄 Glad someone else caught that.
They get more wrong in these videos than they get right. They absolutely do not do research, they just repeat any old thing they hear.
The US used B-17 bombers to destroy German tanks. But very rarely and not without difficulty. Mainly the Normandy, Cobra breakout against German armored units. This was overkill but it was a vital attack against well prepared German positions. US WW2 tank destroyers actually had less armor than Sherman's. These Tiger killers used speed, mobility and firepower to hunt German tanks. Though successful the WW2 US tank destroyer concept was cancelled. Sherman tanks were well used against T-34 tanks in Korea. And Israeli Sherman's destroyed T-55 tanks in 1973. The Abrams is a multirole tank. And the AH-64 is now an excellent tank destroyer for support. The Bradley is also an excellent antitank system with guns, missiles and dismounted infantry anti-tank teams. But more vulnerable than the Abrams. And there are a number of other antitank options for the US. The Bradley and Apache have multirole capabilities. But anti tank capability was a designed capability from the start during the Cold War. WW2 US tank destroyers did take losses but were generally able to destroy more German tanks. They were intended to be rapidly deployed defensive units to stop German tank breakthroughs. But they usually ended up in a more offensive role as German units were in defense or retreat. This meant Sherman's usually had to attack prepared German positions and ambushes. Once ammo storage on Sherman tanks was improved the risk of fires was greatly reduced. Sherman tank loss and crew loss rates were far lower than T-34s. The Sherman's were war winning tanks. 4000 served in the USSR. It was far more reliable than poor quality WW2 T-34 tanks. After WW2 the quality of T-34s and there features were much better. They could all be fitted with radios. And better quality material and workmanship. Most WW2 T-34s were lost. About 44 000. Compared to 12 000 Sherman's lost in WW2. All Sherman tanks that saw combat had to be transported by trains and ships. So they had to fit into regular transport ships loaded by cranes. When it was designed they had no specialist tank landing ships. This limited its size and weight. The US lacked engines and gear boxes for an effective heavy tank. The Pershing was not reliable. And by the wars end the Pershing was a medium tank and not a heavy. Perishing's were retired long before Sherman's. Only a handful of Perishing's saw combat in WW2. And in Korea the Sherman's were often preferred. A great feature of the Sherman was its generous turret ring. This allowed increasingly larger guns. The very effective German 75mm Panther gun was developed by the French after WW2. The Israelis fitted the French 75mm guns to its Sherman's. As US guns were not available. And used well in 1973. So the Sherman deserves a better reputation. Research on US tank unit crew losses shows they were generally much lower than infantry casualties. Says Chieftain, War Thunder.. Champion of the Sherman.
Lots of wrong info, in first chechen war soviets use t80s , etc
New video idea, p51 mustang vs Lockheed F35 Lightning
The Battle of Kursk did not involve 23,000 tanks. More like 2,300 - 5000 ish. So I'm assuming that was just a typo. You would think someone would've fact checked that & been like: "Man I dunno; 23,000 tanks doesn't quite sound right...". Lol
44:01 at least I'm still alive to remember the funk😂
26 Years on a Tank to include Desert Storm. None of my crews or myself ever pooped in the tank.
"Panzer" means "armour"... Panzerkampfwagen... armoured battle vehicle... what you're talking about is either the Panther Panzer or the Tiger Panzer... so, the modern Leopard tank is also a "Panzer"
Love your videos, BTW
Im also not for sure about the shermans using a direct oil or fuel injection for a smoke screen like the soviet tanks with diesel engines used the shermans used White phos rounds and smoke canisters launchers like german tanks used which im not certain of about the canisters but im positive the Shermans used willy p rounds for concealment smoke
My dad was a tank driver in desert storm
That first video felt like a one sided school yard "yeah? But my dad..." argument
3:49 Gaijin: chilling. “let’s leak the armour composition on the game forums!” NOOOOOOO-
'Zelda' is a girl, you're thinking of 'Link'
You forgot about the British?
This would make a good movie.
Panzer is simply the german word for tank. Which one of the many german WW2 tank types is your Panzer?
Did you not watch the video? Or do you think being purposely obtuse and pedantic makes you seem intelligent? Theres only one tank produced in such numbers by Germany during WW2, the Panzer IV, which you'd know if you ACTUALLY knew as much about tanks as you seemingly want people to believe.
@@ferrosplice8460Friendly reminder sarcasm does not translate well with text through a screen.
Panzer IV H
The Germans didn’t nickname the Sherman tank “zippos” because most Germans probably hadn’t ever seen a zippo lighter. Instead, they called the relatively easily destroyed Shermans “Ronsons”, which was the lighter brand they would’ve been familiar with and who’s motto was “one strike and it lights”. Not exactly a compliment.
Why say “zippo” instead? Given the state of education in the US, I guess I can’t blame you 😆
Whats the purpose of making divisive vidios like this?
Many people forgot that the soviets "liberated" most of SE Europe with Shermans and not T-34s.
The t34 was not relaible, mobile or resilient it shatterd the second it was hit, it had huge reliabilety ishoos and jast not good expensive anrilaible and stupitly made, it was the worst. If you want more info i wood wach laserpig
I don’t think it needed 3 and a half hours to find out if a tank from 80 years ago could possibly be better that a modern battle tank
found it impossible to watch due to constant advert interruptions
Going on a liquid diet, while in combat is something that’s encouraging because quite frankly, a liquid diet cuts down on the amount of debris that has to be thrown out of the tank
And yet you couldn't tell us where that man's axe resides today eh?
The cope channels back on the algorithm no way
A HUMVEE w a TOW launcher on it could defeat a Sherman tank before the Sherman knew it was even there
One Abrams could take on the entire platoon of WW 2 tanks an win!~ it's Chobham armor alone could withstand the shells of the past with ease!~
I believe The Zippo was a catch-phrase started as the Sherman lighter. It was embellished as The Zippo so that Congress would fund wet rack stowage and other modifications
I love how they still try to make the T90 look like a good tank.
Sherman with the derp gun. Yin can with a artillery gun was dangerous. But German tanks were simply the best. But one red phosphorus flare down the barrel and the Abrams is decommissioned
The Abrahams was not the first tank to feature Chobham armour. The first tank to feature Chobham Armour was the British Challenger tank. Even a tertiary google search prooves this is the case.
This account spreads so much misinformation, one has to wonder if it's from pure neglect or is it intentional. I watch them these days just to count the inaccuracies in the videos and get a laugh from it.
I like tanks, thanks😁
That is a Panzerkampfwagen IV and that IV is quite important
I only know of Leopards lost to mines, not moskovite tanks. Not saying it could never happen, but I don't see even their super-duper T-90 standing a chance against that German kitty.
yeah is that why russia is winning ?
@@faisalislamchowdhury5183 Which ruSSia is that? And what is it winning exactly? 😆Common, little troll don't stop now .
@@argumentativelysound2001 russia is now on the offensive and is slowly regaining ground, cope all you want but that won't change the fact that russia will win
Lol this guy 👆
@@faisalislamchowdhury5183 Russia has lost a lot more than Ukraine has lol they're throwing everything they have and struggling lol
Meanwhile in 2024:
Gaijin: “We don’t believe that the Abrams has Depleted Uranium Armor”
The Russlans aren't the only ones to fire ATGMs from main battle tank guns. Israel got such a missile as well. It's called Lahat, has a range of 8 km (5 miles) and is available in a 120 and 105 mm version.
Sure..... let's compare a tank from the forties with one from at least 30 years later... It's like comparing a civil war hand crank gatling gun to the 30mm gat found on the A-10.
The M1 Abrams is the danger. It's the one who knocks 😅
And just a few days ago, nearly one month from this video, another T-90 got ambushed by two Bradley's, which isn't meant to take on tanks. What a joke.
The Mays was never completed or used, 2 HULLS were completed and both were test models
What does the killdozer have to do with m4 sherman vs m1 Abrahams
Yea, Abrams runs JP8, SAME AS EVERY ARMY VEHICLE INCLUDING HELICOPTERS
the real question is , how many t- 72´s do you need against an Abrahams of the new kind ? can they even hurt him ?
I dont know why sherman got a bad name when the allies basic used the sherman for basically anything on every combat field in ww2
Uh... where are the Shermans?
the real question is that will we ever remake the Sherman?
42:55 go remoute control and use only ia if the tank go offline or to assit the pilot like he cheat client in he simalar way to video game unfortunatly for casual player, this will not be he instantaniouse change whe but not so far from it whis some experminent in Ukraine on both side with smaller scale drone and some wapon builder in America
Zelda is a girl. @0:05
Zelda is the princess Link is the boy trying to save her.
All of these stories this guy tell have been changed up and twisted.
If im not mistaken didn’t russia win with a fraction of their military power? Yes they took a while but the US had to spend billions too keep Ukraine going. also when i say win i mean they took the region they were going after. You are talking like they are powerless but they are a huge threat and we should take caution with them
Next Week, teenagers with paintball and pistol airguns Vs. Seal Team 6 in full tactical gear and supressed automatic weapons, Who will win!?!!?
i wouldnt say a panzer 4 is easy to maintain. they were produced by hand and were "bespoke" for lack of better words
Please tell me your just joking! The Russia T90 is lack luster with no good quality compared to the Abram’s and the Abram’s should be number 1, it’s called experience on the battle field and the challenger has changed it riffled gun due to lack of control and range and the weapons it can’t fire! Your buggin
If I’m in a tank battle please give me the Abram’s right this second! It’s the first thing I’m going for, the new Sep2 version of course!
The Abrams. It wouldnt even be a fair fight.
There. I just saved you three and a half hours.
Today:fancy and strong but then: baddas and strong.
Chosse your characther.
what about italian and japanese tanks?
I don't know where the guy's getting his information on the best tanks of the world. First and second spot winners are not the French or China . I would have to say Israel, israel would be number one and the second would the Abram a2 or -e3😅🎉
He just makes stuff up bro
well this has not aged well
Okay, Sherman did amazing against the abrams, two Sherman’s can get an abrams down, even tho a Sherman cost a 1/4 of the price 🤑
"Button house"... That first building should be called a survival shack. What a misleading introduction. Without a shower, that isn't a house, it's nothing more than an extra backyard office/room for the rich who already have a real house and large property, like the second building. The idea of renting that out to anyone should be criminal. But these "houses" would be a nice luxury addition to a property admittedly.
The fact that it takes 3 1/2 hours to decide on an answer is sad
Wait... princess Zelda is a girl lol
Ive actually masterbated in the driver hatch of a Abram and the gunners turret room in a Bradley the cheese omelette MRE lol😅