I’m surprised because no one bats an eye when Russia, Germany, Britain and the such choosing their own design. Maybe it’s because there is an advantage to choosing your own design that’ll fit what you want and not having to deal with a tank that doesn’t fit what’s needed?
@@Predator20357 maybe, especially given how stingy the US government is about having stuff made within their borders. Even when a foreign contractor wins a contract (like Sig with the new rifle for the army) the government makes them produce it in the US. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
@@FirstNameLastName-qx8ii What it makes me think is that the US doesn’t want to wait on anyone else. If it’s something that goes to the main people, they might not want the factories be foreign and have someone go “whoops, we are having shipping problems, your brand new stuff will have to wait” Again, no one cares if Germany makes their German things in Germany or if the British, French, Russians do so as well.
@@FirstNameLastName-qx8ii sometimes the ability of US government to butt fvck a companies how big or influential it is because some Senator/Congressman wants a piece of the loot
I think an important thing too to mention is the XM-1 ranked higher in survivability and for the USA that was a higher priority in their tank cause it is harder to replace crews over an ocean.
@WarlordToby yes but an experienced crew is much more valuable than the vehicle, this is a philosophy America adopted way back in WWII especially when it came to pilots. Its easier to replace a vehicle than it is to replace a crew, of which American logistics is supreme at doing.
@@battleship6177 They are equally valuable and pretending it to be otherwise is stupid. Point is to not sacrifice material or crews because both are hard to replace. Crews take a long time to train and vehicles take a long time to procure and transport. America is not unique in what is a very basic level of responsible troop maintenance.
@WarlordToby but the point is that you're going to lose something regardless, this is war. It's impossible to not gain any sort of casualties whether human or equipment, and therefore the survival of the crews in America's eyes is more valuable since the ability to not only procure but replace equipment is much easier for the United States when in a war. Even tho the US fights mainly over seas, this task is made much easier due to not only the Unites States's military and industrial power but also its sophisticated logistical aspect. There is merit to the joke "The US Military is just a Logistical branch that dabbles in war."
The European armies that adopted the Leo2A4 before the end of the Cold War did so for the same reason the Canadians adopted the Leo1A3/C1 for their mech bde gp in Germany. Parts, technical support and training support was cheaper than that for the M1A1. When the Egyptians and Saudis adopted M1A1/M1A2, the maintenance costs were more equal and the M1 was purchased.
Don't kid yourself.. there's a lot more than purchase and maintenance cost involved.. I'm sure a lot of US "politics" were "explained" for the Egyptians and Saudis
@@hisheighnessthesupremebeing Keep in mind the US sold an entire M1 factory to Egypt, and this factory continues at low production rates doing overhauls even today. The Egyptian couldn't buy a Leopard 2 factory.
Unironically, Canada only bought Leopard 1s because Pierre Trudeau and his admin had friends who wanted to dump a large number of obsolete tanks. Trudeau was happy because he was perfectly content with the Canadian military becoming an internal security force whose main opponent was the FLQ (Quebec nationalists) rather than actually being able to stand against the Soviet Union, and the friends were happy with the money they got for these obsolete tanks. Canadian military gets screwed again unfortunately.
The F35 is gaining great support here in Australia with it's runs at pitch black in darwin and flight demo's at v8 supercar races at Darwin and Bathurst last weekend. At Pitch black we had eurofighters, rafale's. mig's, sukhoi's, F15's and F16's that were all dealt with easily by RAAF F35's and 18's working in tandem. The F35's cleared the way so the 18's could do their thing.
Hell yeah, buying F-35’s is probably the smartest thing any country can do for their Air Forces… well unless you are a country in South America and most of the neighboring countries only have Super Tucanos or older jet models.
I’m ngl. I’ve been a big military nerd and before I started watching videos from this sphere of RU-vid I had never heard of his name before. For some reason, this side of the military nerd YT channels loves mentioning Sprey despite him never really doing anything. “You disagree with anything we believe? Oh! You must like Pierre Sprey huh?”
Current-gen MBTs are a bit like WWI-era bolt action military rifles: they all have very similar capabilities, which is 'best' is largely down to personal preference, but the Russians ones are probably the worst...
It doesn’t matter even if the Abrams is slightly overmatched. It’s only a part of the US war behemoth of logistics, training, manpower and combined arms with air, artillery and mechanised infantry. Add to that the experience of fighting a war every decade, there’s just no win against the US Air, Land or Sea. Well, man for man perhaps the Israelis but that’s about it.
Poor Mosin, however it is pretty comparable, considering that thing came out 1891, making it older than most if not all of the rifles in frontline service. Something like the T72B 1989 compared to the M1A2s and Leo 2A4s and 5s.
Pictured: Underrated RU-vidr explains why the most powerful military-industrial complex on the planet isn’t reliant on theft and is actually capable of functioning independently.
No such thing as the military industrial complex. At least not in the sense it is implied in. The ‘MIC’ exists because of war. They do not create it. We would not see such a shrink in their capacity and power after the soviets collapsed if they had full control of the government. Ryan mcbeth has a good explanation of it.
I find it interesting seeing soldiers in Ukraine compare American gear to what they had been using and often give it glowing praise, even for things people have snubbed or don't think are significant. Everything from Bradley's they're willing to risk their lives for, or M67 grenades hitting targets at 5m when most others fail to hit, and tracking shrapnel going 8050 m/s compared to many other's roughly 6900 m/s
America is definitely a strong industrial and military power, and has made a lot of good gear, but they have also made a lot of crappy shit. As with any country, especially one with as expansive a range of different equipment as the US, there will always be good and bad. It is important to think about things with a balanced perspective even if you like certain militaries more than the others. It seems like half of the discussions about this topic nowadays are just people cherry picking evidence back and forth for why there favorite country is the best.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 And? It fixed an issue nonetheless, technology is allowed to innovate and get better, hence the now standardization of the APU.
It should be noted that the Leo 2A4 thermal sight and the stabilization was designed and built by Hughes & Honeywell. It is a Leo2A4 because the Leo 2A2 was equipped with a light intensification sight, also designed in the US. The M1 entered service at the same time with a thermal sight. Yes, the US eventually adopted a version of the Rheinmetall 120mm, the M256 which had 25% less parts.
The L44 cannon built under license in the United States has actually been improved over the German version. Different mechanism, different propellant, different muzzle velocity.
@@classicgalactica5879 The initial model of the M256 as per US Army publications in 1986 and open sources such as Hunicutt, Jane's Armor and Artillery 1985-86 and 90-91 and Jane's AFV Retrofit Systems, 1991-1992, was a copy of the Rheinmettal gun modified for American manufacturing processes. This resulted in the American version being slightly lighter. The difference in ammunition has nothing to do with the gun, which still has the same dimensions and chamber IAW STANAG (all 120mm tank guns developed from the Rheinmettal and the French CN-120-F1 have interchangeable ammunition manufactured to NATO standards, including the Japanese and Israeli version). The M829 series ammo was adopted with the gun and was part of a family of ammunition which included the M830 APDSFS from the 105mm M68. The Bundesheer used the DM13, 23 and 33. The difference was the heavier DU projectile in the M829A1, which gave a slightly lower muzzle velocity. Both families of projectiles could be fired in either gun, but only to an estimated battle bore sight as neither tank's fire control systems were designed to work with the other countries' ammunition.
From somebody who has no knowledge about the M1 and Leopard 2 development and only addressing the first segment, where those other channels talk about copying from the PT-07: For me it doesn't sound like they're saying that the XM-1 is only successful because of copying elements from the PT-07, but that they were able to beat the competitor by copying elements from it, therefor gaining an edge.
Honestly a really big deal in my eyes with the leopard 2 that I feel dosnt get brought up enough, is that it has a much smaller rack in it's blowout panels, and often crew have to rely on the HULL AMMO STORAGE with no blowout protection to carry a decent amount of ammo into battle. I feel like the hull ammo storage greatly compromised the leopard 2's crew survivability
Interestingly this assumption is not quite correct. Similarly to the T-64, T-72 and T-80´s, the hull ammo rack on Leo2 (and basicly every other MBT) is comparatively low to the ground. Due to this, terrain features (even small bumps, bushes etc) obscure the relevant area on distances over a few 100m (and tank combat was not envisoned to happen below a few 100m in the first place). Also the frontal hull armor of Leo2A0-A4 was more than adequate to resist cold war sovjet anti tank rounds etc of the time it was introduced and afterwards. (up to 400mm vs KE rounds, around 760 vs HEAT, the best sovjet 125mm KE round, 3BM42 Mango, produced around 510mm penetration and was only introduced in the late 80´s ). The hull rack was not an unprotected weakspot, but unlikely to be hit in the first place and very well protected too. Mine damage is another story, but here M1 and M1A1 are as vulnerable as older Leo2 models, due to the lack of mine blast protection vs heavier loads. The Ready Rack size of Leo2 and M1 are actually comparable. Both fit around 15 rounds ready. Both M1 and Leo2 crews have to redistribute stored ammuniton from the bunkers (hull rack on Leo2 or turret storage rack on the turret right on M1) after a firefight. The regular expected tank vs tank engagement didnt require more than 15 rounds ready per vehicle in a platoon. (thats a combined 60 rounds ready in a 4 vehicle platoon. when you pump out 60 120mm rounds in 90 seconds and still something is standing afterwards, you needed more than a platoon in the first place) Also germany has introduced a powder mixture into its 120mm cartridges, wich is inert until triggered by the cartridge primer. they dont burn up, even if the tank is on fire. With that, the "danger" of the missing blowout panel on the hull rack is effectively nullified. (exception is you using older late 80´s ammuniton like DM33 instead DM53 or DM63
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 i think the biggest thing you gloss over is the fact that mines are still some of the most common threats to tanks when advancing, and while yes, all tanks are vulnerable, some are more vulnerable than others. By having sealed ammo storage in the back of the turret, the Abrams can safely store more ammo without less risk of a catastrophic ammo detonation that would kill the crew. Yes the Abrams crew is still at risk from a mine explosion, but atleast they have a chance to walk away, with leopards like the ones that were used by Turky, the crew didn't stand a chance if the ammo in the hull was struck. So yes it absolutely is still a big deal, unless you don't care about crew survival rates of course. And the idea the a weak spot isn't a weak spot because it would be concealed in "Ideal" conditions dosnt really hold up when we all know that anything and everything can happen on the battlefield.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041Likely hood of an ammo burnout regardless, the Leopard still had a disadvantage in sustained fire rate (empty ready rack). The Abrams had an extra semi-ready rack behind the commander which meant more ammo was located in the turret (easier for the crew to access) rather than in the hull. In fact, if I remember correctly, the US Army was not happy with the fact that the Leopard had to offset its turret so the turret crew could access the hull storage. Both tanks would have extended reload times but the Abrams has the freedom of keeping its turret towards the threat.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 yes, but what I’m saying is that the Abrams has a extra semi-ready rack behind the commander, so it doesn’t have to leave after the ready rack is emptied. The Leopard doesn’t, and with the need to rotate the turret to restock its ready rack, the leopard is effectively out of the fight since it’s exposing the side of the turret and or has to leave the combat area. The Abrams can keep on fighting even though its abilities are diminished since the commander and loader have to do a little bucket brigade with the ammo to get it restocked/loaded but the gunner is still free to move the turret.
RAH-66 was turned, like all *good* MIC projects, into a way to develop a ton of extremely useful technology that would later be filtered down to a million different things. The Apache isn't the same aircraft because of it. Apache is a crazy lethal and effective helicopter because of it, as is AH-1Z, and honestly the consequences of that specific program go through all the later Hellfires, all the western world's attack helicopters in one form or another, things like Small Diameter Bomb being able to hit moving targets, etc. We did a lot with RAH-66. LCS was not like that. Zumwalt was but we won't see the fruit for a long time.
Something you didn’t mention was the Abram’s turret was also larger meaning crews could load the gun faster along with the loader being able to be higher then the breach of the gun so it didn’t need to have the gun auto move up to load a new shell. Plus it also had all round blow out panels along with protection of hull ammo.
I am not surprised the American MBT-70 team went far enough to cut away things from XM803. They had put a lot into the MBT-70 and some of the final cuts were just too much. 1. Lock out the pneumatic-hydraulic suspension at ~17", remove the manifolds and controls. 2. Keep the ammo in the bustle but dump the auto loader. The loader's hatch could go up through the area which once held the 20mm gun. 3. Move the CIS over and put a rail around the commander's and loader's hatches. Putting a .50 HMG on the CIS made no sense. 4. Some of the money saved could have gone into silicate laminated armor, something the US Army had been looking at since 1952-53. 5. Relooked the stub cartridge. The 2d generation tungsten-steel APDSFS round out of the XM150 gun-launcher could punch through ~600mm RHA plate at the vertical. A fourth generation DU round would have penetrated ~750mm. 6. Dropped the M150 into the M60A2. 7. A later option would have been dropping an GT-1500 in to standardize the fleet. Thermal sights to replace the passive intensification sights and the AN/VSS-2 S/L. ERA over the frontal quarter. M256 replace the M150. 8. Production would have been phased in from 1975 to 1983, with over 3,600 produced. Alternate history is fun when you don't have to deal with an angry Congress just after we abandoned RVN.
Going back through the references from Taschenbuch der Panzer 1976 to Jane's Armour and Artillery 1991-1992 and everything in between, I have a theory about the Leopard 2AV. When you look at the first prototypes of the Leopard 2 there is a good deal of similarity to the Leopard 1A3/1A4, especially the turret. The turret in the Leopard 1A3/1A4 used spaced armor and high hardness steel and RHA to create a turret front of about the equivalent of a vertical RHA 100mm plate. The priority of capabilities in the Leopard 1 mirrored those of the AMX-30: firepower, mobility and as much armor as the desired mobility would allow. The Leopard 1A3/1A4 was essentially protected against APHE and AP shot from 20-30mm autocannon across the frontal quadrant. Initially, the Leopard 2 followed these same design priorities. The first Leopard 2A2 prototypes were built just after the Brits revealed their version of multi-layered steel, ceramic and spaced armor, which became named after the lab that developed, Chobham. The US Army had been playing around with silicates in armor packages since 1952. The usual laminated system would be a plate of high hardness plate and an RHA plate sandwiching the ceramic plate. The problem was that the impact of projectiles on the silicate armor plate could cause cracks across a wide area of the plate. They found that "Quickcrete" of all things would repair and restore the plate's resistance to HEAT and HESH/HEP rounds, but not AP shot/APHE or HVAP. The Brits had solved the cracks problem by putting the ceramics as tiles in a polyurethane matrix between the plates and adding additional layers of other materials and adding spaces. This and the cost of producing such armor led to its exclusion from the M60A1 in 1962, which was originally supposed to have a laminate of 1" high hardness steel, 2" of silicate armor and 2" of RHA on the upper glacis and injected silicate in the turret front and sides. The Leopard 2 would not get "Chobham" armor until after the preproduction run, one of which became the Leopard 2AV. Which explains why the turret frontal protection consisted of only spaced armor between high hardness and RHA plates. The measured weights of the prototypes, preproduction models and the initial production shows a two ton difference, enough to account for the replacement of the original spaced armor by a "Chobham" package.
the problem with Leo2AV was, that it had to fit US Specifications. And the US required a strict 53t weight limit to be uphold. Here KMW "cheated" a bit, by taking off heavier armor elements and replacing them with lighter ones, to achieve the relevant weight limit. Leo2A0 is up to 3t heavier than M1, while featuring a smaller but tighter packed turret and features thicker frontal protection in LOS and actual protection than the initial M1, wich only caught up to Leo2 with M1A1 in that arera.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Actually, according to declassified Soviet documents on the NATO and CIA websites, the Leopard 2A2/4 was less well-protected than the M1, which was less well protected than the Challenger 1. Partly this was the slope of the frontal aspects of the M1 turret which was sloped both horizontally and vertically from a projectile approaching from the front, where the Leopard 2A4 was only sloped in the horizontal plane. Otherwise, protection was comparable. The German focus was on mobility, firepower and protection. The US focused on protection, mobility and firepower. The British focused on protection, firepower and mobility. This is fully illustrated by a comparison of the Leopard 1, the M60 and the Chieftain. The additional weight of the Leopard 2A4 compared to the M1 was the water-cooled diesel engine vs. the air-cooled turbine, the 120mm gun vs the 105mm and the German tracks. The M1PI and the M1A1 was 25% better protected than the M1. It was the Leopard A5/6/7 that caught up with the M1A1, not the other way around. And the M1A1(HA) (sometimes called the M1A1+) improved that by another 20%. But that is one argument that won't be resolved. As it was, the top tier NATO MBTs in the mid to late 1980s and early 1990s were sufficiently superior to the T-80BV, T-72S and T-64BV, especially in situations of reduced visibility, that the Soviets would have paid a heavy price. Then there was Air-Land Battle and the tools (M1 MBT, M2 IFV, MLRS, ATACMs, F-117, F-111 and F-15E) to block the second echelon at the Oder and Elbe while the first echelon was destroyed and the US 1st and 7th Armies penetrated into the DDR and set up to engage the second echelon as it dribbled forward.
This is an unbelievably valuable video. I commend you on your diligent and thorough research, as well as your clear, detailed, and unabashedly honest presentation 😊 I’m not sure whether or not this has been the intended purpose of your presentations overall, but it has done much to validate the conclusion that my veteran father told me long ago: the military makes mistakes which are rightly publicized for the benefit of the public, but it’s not populated by idiots.
There is the fact that armies are inherently nationalistic. So if a country can, they will develop there own tank ,they do and this is reflected in the real world. Why would anyone expect the US to accept a foreign tank design even a very good one if it's perfectly capable of designing and producing its own tank?
Countries that the ability to develops and produce their own tank tend to do so because they can build it from the ground up to suit their needs and doctrine. The x m1 was designed to meet the requirements of the US where the Germans had to use a modified design which comes with drawbacks.
@@mamarussellthepie3995 well when you're designing a tank for your own military you tend to know what you need and so you will specialize it for your own military the Germans did not do this The leopard 2 was built for export
If you look at that billboard it says "Our Alaska" but Indicates and area somewhere around Tomsk Russia. Which I believe is promoting tourism for that area, not making a claim on US Territory.
I mean, given the fact that the M1 Abrams is a 40-year-old tank that's still in service and still at the top of its class, I'd say one of the most successful tanks ever developed. The equivalent for a tank serving that long would be like a British Mk II from WWI holding its own in the Korean War.
"That's the issue with people saying F-35 copied Yak-141, they simply say it" Wait hold up, what about Lockheed-Yakovlev cooperation agreement and documentation sent over??
Can you tell me more about it? All I can find is Convair's and PW's work on Model 200 and the next plane with main nozzle being used for VTOL via TVC is Yak-141
@@StrvB-ng8kbthis same creator has two videos discussing the fact that the 35 is not a copy. He specifically addresses the funding of new 141s for data. See some of his videos earlier videos
Once upon a time, ConeofArc put up a video claiming the M1 was nothing but a copy of the Leopard 2. I commented using Hunnicutt and Zaloga and other references that this was BS. Soon after the video disappeared from his site. This is why I pay no attention to any videos he posts or is involved in.
A have a couple of old references, such as "Taschenbuch der Panzer" from 1976 and "Jane's World Armored Fighting Vehicles" by Christopher F. Foss also published 1976. On page 88 is the entry for the XM-1. On page 24 - 26 is the entry for the Leopard 2. There is a picture of a Leopard 2 prototype with the L7 105mm gun. The pictures of the Leopard 2 prototypes do not look anything like what the Leopard 2A2 production models look like. Both tanks went through a progressive series of developments. Both were designed against similar BUT NOT exactly the same. The Germans emphasized mobility and firepower over protection. The Americans emphasized protection and mobility over firepower. The later Challenger emphasized firepower and protection over mobility. This why the Leopard 2AV did not meet the US Army's requirements. This is why the MBT-70 was a constant battle between the German and American design teams. The requirements of the two armies were to diverse to meet with a single mtank design.
I came here because of Spookston's video, and I subscribed because your video was excellent (turns out there is some nuance in things, and we probably don't know as much as we think we do, 40 or more years after the actual events). Also...Matsimus was like an E4 for a minute, so his content is that he just talks about shit he sees on videos? It's really cringe.
people always call it a government bail out whenever a weapon thats not chosen which is their favourite. Much like northrop stans who still till this day thinks that the yf23 is better in everyway than the f22 whereas it barely flew but they said that f22 was picked because of lockheed in financial crisis which isn't even the true reason due to f22 being tested more and was a more conventional design that performed similarly with the yf23. It was simply a safer option and lockheed was better with large contracts while northrop is notoriously bad at it (see b2 as example)
Actually the first tank with a thermal sight was the M60A3 TTS introduced in 1978. Also the Swiss chose the Leopard 2 in 1988 before the end of the Cold War. The deciding factor was the cheaper service life logistics as the Swiss were going to build most of their Leopard 2 and Germany was across the border.
It's a shame how despite how good this video is that the false narrative of the Abrams copying the Leopard is still more popular just because it serves to elevate German tank design...something that is annoyingly common. People think anything German is just inherently better for some odd reason.
M1 main advantage is rapid mobility and agility, hit hard hit fast then get out, the Leopard 2 and the Challenger 2 were build as defensive forces not offensive,
I am not aware of the Bundesheer or Krauss-Maffei ever showing prospective crews videos of the M1 prototypes having their bustle penetrated and the ammo going off WITHOUT fire passing through the armored bulkheads into the crew compartment.
The design of the British Centurion were inspired by captured German Panther tanks and that's considered to be one of the most successful tanks Britain ever built.
I was in the Army as a Medic back in the day. I did get to drive a M-60 once. The rest of the time I had a M113-A1 serving with the 40th Tank Battalion at Fort Carson. With the Russia / Ukraine thing getting Very serious.. there is a lot more interest in what equipment each side is using.... Here it is Jan 2023 and I am just now looking at what advantages might be had by the combatants... There is the problem of training, fuel, terrain and ammo etc. of course.. With todays Drone and Satellite tech. I see the bigger problem as using 1970's, 80's era, designed, built and now old upgraded Tank platforms being very vulnerable... Apparently howitzers and Drones go well together.. I am not a fan of war and destruction, lives lost. but am trying to stay informed with real information, Not just the MSM. So I appreciate this video... lol, I am also a big fan of Half-Life, been playing since day 1...
@@patchouliknowledge4455 hybrid powertrain to give greater range for one thing. 3 men instead of 4 men operation for a second. I think some more carbon fibre usage in the frame. Manless turret as well.
I really just want to make a joke about how people are either German Bootlickers, mad that they aren’t great at everything or people that don’t like the US Military or US itself trying to downplay every accomplishment they had because they don’t want to admit how good the US is. However I feel like this all comes from sources ignorance rather than flat out hatred (for most anyway), like since I never go too deep into the “Tank Fandom”, I never even realized people were calling something that from my point of view, look more like half brothers than the same chassis (like almost all of the T-54 and above series) It’s interesting to watch this video after watching Spookstons one and seeing how crazy the claims are Edit: it hurts to hear a RU-vidr I know like ConeofArc being so quick to claim Political Conspiracy while not even providing what the XM1 copied from the Leopard prototype, I like him but man is he like base line when it comes to tank knowledge
You're also ignoring that Euros want to stan Europe, Germany has a cleaner track record in terms of not couping anyone since 1945, that Russia is more focused on saying America sucks, and China is more focused on saying America sucks.
@@Seth9809 my dude, saying Germany has a cleaner track record has literally no point in this discussion as last time I check, WarCrimes amount don’t equal if someone thinks a tank is good or bad (Because then Russia would’ve never had an illusion of power with their mass tank force before the Ukraine War and any new one coming out would be called a copycat of the lass one). Most of these “ignoring” just seem like “Oh they are from other country so they must hate American made stuff already.” When I’m pretty sure the people in this video besides straight up Germans, are either a New Zealander, Australian and/or American. You know, 1/3 of them being actually European and closer to America which if we go by your logic, will Stan more for them if not stabbing for their own built tanks. Also including Russia and China is also pointless as it wasn’t Russian News Media that did notable damage to American made stuff, it was the Reformers who did damage, an American group because Americans watch and listen to Americans more than places that don’t speak their language first hand. Overall, I disagree with your statement and will stick to my original opinion.
I used to like coneofarc until I realized he wasn’t very knowledgeable with armored vehicles. Now he does videos on the most obscure stuff and no one watches them.
In regard to the L/44 to L/55 and why the US didn’t upgrade. There isn’t a need to upgrade. The DU APFSDS rounds fired from US tanks have better penetrating performance than the Tungsten ammunition used by Germany. So in order to get the same amount of penetration from the ammunition, Germany had to make the tank gun longer (this resulting in the L/55) The US didn’t have a need to upgrade their existing tanks and making new tanks with an upgraded gun since the current gun+ammo did plenty well enough. Unnecessarily waste of money to upgrade. Once again proving, DU ammunition is better.
Another partial reason for the longer gun is increased long range accuracy, the US likely didn’t see the increase of accuracy as big enough to bother to upgrade though.
@@spyran5839 Yup, upgrading costs money. And when you have literally thousands of Abrams to Upgrade… that shits extreme. So any gains in accuracy are pretty much not worth swapping the guns. New models (Like the GD teased one) might have a new gun since it’s easy to build new ones like that. However, it’s probably better to just start the process of Upgrading to a 130mm boomstick instead.
@@spyran5839 This reasoning bothers me. Do we know, data point for data point, that it does? Like, mechanical accuracy, not just a higher velocity making it easier to hit stuff. Actual dispersion measurements? A lot of people think longer barrels in normal guns=more accurate, but if the projectile is being stabilized correctly (it encounters enough revolutions of rifling to get the necessary spin) this is basically entirely untrue and other factors, mostly consistency related ones, impact accuracy. This isn't a rifled gun, but all of the factors that impact accuracy should be pretty similar (how evenly powder burns, quality control of the barrel itself and imperfections, the ability to acquire the appropriate spin from the projectile's fins, consistency from round to round in powder load and projectile construction and general ammunition quality control, aerodynamic forces upon exiting the barrel) I don't know what an extra meter or whatever of barrel would do that would positively impact any of these things. It makes a couple of them harder, since the barrel is longer and it needs to be a little beefier to be as rigid to deal with heat and droop.
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 You have to keep in mind that quality control on most NATO equipment especialy tanks used by the bigger militaries is pretty good. Most NATO tanks also have an MRS system to measure any barrel bend extremely precisely, so I'm pretty sure Rheinmetall do the necessary quality controll to provide wanted accuracy.
@@spyran5839 Oh I don't doubt they achieved roughly or literally the same standard, I just don't see specifically the barrel length alone improving accuracy. The factors I mentioned are simply the challenges those advanced systems are necessary to counteract
I know very little about tanks, so i could be completely wrong. From what i've seen the Abrams is more versatile with more options, while the Leopard is more specialized. There are vast differences between them for example, the Abrams uses a turbine engine while the Leopard uses a diesel engine. Turbine engines are not ideal in wet climates but excells in dry climates, and diesel engines are better suited for wet climates. Its almost like they are designed for somewhat different things and climates. Based on that alone i could come up with two different tests comparing them against each other, and in test 1 Abrams wins with 90 points out of 90, and in the other test the Leopard wins 90 points out of 90 simply by carefully choosing what is important. They are very good both but at somewhat different things. The Abrams is designed for open fields and deserts while the Leopard is designed for forests and marshes. Why does that matter, well it matters because of what is important for those different terrains. The Leopard is good at hiding in forests and waiting in ambush. While the Abrams relies more on quick relocations and swift manouvers. So for the Abrams top speed is more important, but in forests and waiting its better to be more invisible. That means the guns are different too, the Abrams will engage in combat over longer ranges then the Leopard, so they need to be able to shoot longer. So what we end up doing is comparing oranges to apples so to speak. Both are excellent tanks but designed differently for the terrain they will more likely find combat in.
It’s one of the songs from Wargames DEFCON 1. It’s a PS1 game. The soundtrack was never officially released, but you could listen to the music if you popped the game CD into any player. I believe it’s called “track 5” on RU-vid.
i guess it doesn't help on abrams case that the leopard just looks sleek and cooler to your average joe, then the average reaction of people on abrams is iraq and "just a tank" personally I just like the abrams better, he looks chonky but boy he made my COD days and Battlefield days awesome plus that guy is going strong until this day with numerous battle proven technologies and experience on the field.
Hey! Its favourite tank! The people who believe that either the Leopard 2 or the Abrams that are superior than one other are dumb. I believe both tanks (like you said) are made for their own purposes, made under the tanks country of origin, doctrines, the Abrams for the US, the Leo for Germany, challenger for the UK, etc.
21:17 just about to say entering another communication layer just makes having a CITV even more important 21:22 not so sure that if the cold war gone hot and soviet tanks attacked west germany that the M1 would have the same performance as the soviets did have commander sights and ammunition to pen M1 abrams at that time example 3BM32 and later 3BM42 maybe even 3BM26 and compare that to the shit iraqis used 3BM17 all steel penetrator jeah no way you going through even the first M1s armor
I I find that this idea of americans being dumb and bad permeates across a lot of Europe and discussions that feature a lot of european voices (like european history, for example). My personal theory is that they haven't culturally gotten over their colonial superiority complex. Though, the true reason is probably much more mundane.
As a leopard 2a6 crewman who trained with m1 crews, they are very nice people and abrams are cool but they did not stand a change against teenager conscripts like us in our excrercises. Atleast in using the terrain
@taistelusammakko5088 while I know nothing about your specific exercise, I do know that this is how Americans train. They put the unit in the worst case scenario and ask them to try to win from there. That's where you get things like a Mirage killing an F35 with its guns. The Mirage started from a much higher altitude and the F35 suffered a "malfunction" where the drop tanks wouldn't release and a few other problems I can't remember. So, I totally believe they didn't stand a chance. But I also believe that was the point.
Goddamn i missed your videos, before lazerpig, scottish koala, spookston and others, there you were making videos shitposting over the F35 red flag sweep, and putting the zumwalt’s development in context.
In regards to the leopard fire sale of the early 2000's one of its main reasons were the fact that leo2a4 was found out to be incapable of pen the front of a T-80U while it could go through the front of the leo2 no problem.
The claim that tungsten (wolfram) rounds used in Leopard 2 cannot penetrate the Russian T-90 or the modernized version of the T-80 comes from the April 2015, Welt am Sonntag. It isn't true. Sweden evaluated the Leopard 2A5 against the T-80U and rejected T-80U. The Swedish Leopards being Stridsvagn 122. Having evaluated the T-80U they also went on to lease and later purchase 160 Leopard 2A4. Obviously, even the older A4's were deemed to be more than a match for T-80Us. The main reason why so many Leopard's were sold was to get them off the books as Germany was drastically cutting its defense budget. It's why they went from have an excellent army in 1989 to the dog and pony show they have now. You might also wonder why the Ukraine really wants Leopards rather than more T-80UD's.
Seeing Ukraine war today I don't think that this source is reliable. It's true that we have seeing not as much tank to tank combat now but we have seen older URSS munitions being used by both ukraine and Russia tanks I also believe that the claim is more propaganda than fact.
germany had to sell 80% of its 2000 leopard 2 + its 1800 leopard 1 or scrap them due to the "conventional forces in europe" treaty, wich forced EVERY european nation to reduce stocks of heavy weapons to peace time levels (meaning like 300-400 MBT´s for a large country)
@@Seth9809 the main reason was the required reduction of heavy weapons and armed forces in europe. the spending in fact was not cut that much, alot of the fniancing problems of the bundeswehr come from nepotism and corruption in the procurement process
First of all anyone that thinks that the government bailed Chrysler defense from bankruptcy is an idiot, Chryslers XM-1 was better in many ways like the engine, second not only did XM-1 not copy the leopard but Chrysler defense came up with the damn idea of XM-1 components way before PT-19s (Leo 2AV) purchase and lastly if we are talking about copying, it was Leo 2 that copied Abrams tanks bcz it was muricas idea to create the MBT-70 in the first place, also Leo 2 fits what Germany desires in a tank, Abrams fits what USA desires from a tank and the T series fits what Russia desires from a tank, USA wants defence Germany want firepower and Russia wants fear, hence why their tanks ain't as good as they promise (correct me if I'm wrong)
Also it's just a fucking tank, both Leo and Abrams are tanks, no one should argue about one copying another, both defend their countries one way of another, stop fighting about it, it's just making you look like a manchild that glazes one and hates another, I genuinely like Leo tanks sheerly bcz they're are German, but I love Abrams tanks bcz of their whole history and achievements, not to glaze but I've seen a TT where it was stated that an Abrams got stuck in mud defeated 30ish iraqi T-72 and then left, idk if it's true but it's just good, that's why I like it :D
@@m1a1abramstank49 that's russain tanks look at iraq it's always the russain tanks being destroyed all the time it's there design abrams is a real tank with real armor and firepower
@@m1a1abramstank49 honestly never made sense to me obsolescence means you found something that does the tank's job better not that you can destroy the tank the aircraft carrier did the job of the battleship better thus making battleships obsolete
