So many people complaining about me not stating the problems the Soviet or German tanks have or used to have... Honestly people, this is a video where I simply point out the problems that M1 used to have or still has, if you want to hear about the problems about Russian tanks watch the "Problems with T-90", or "Problems with T-72" or "Problems with Russian tanks". This is a video about Abrams, not about other tanks, when I bring up another nation I am simply pointing out that the thing I am mentioning did exist at the time, but was not present on the vehicle that is the topic of the video. Also, so many people are saying that gas turbine is for some reason better than diesel... There is no evidence to prove that it requires less maintenance, that is one myth that is spread around the internet for some reason but is not true. One has to work with both engines of similar performance (like MTU MB 873 and AGT1500) for an extended period of time in order to come to such a conclusion. Another point I saw being made constantly is that "US has enough money/resources to use the gas turbine"... I never said US did not, but if it has enough money to keep the turbine, then it means that the diesel wouldnt change that fact, you would only have to refuel your tank on less occasions. Another point I saw is that you could use "captured fuel" or some other fuel if you dont have access to your armies supplies... First of all, diesel engines are pretty much universal around the world, so there is 99% chance that the enemy is using diesel, and if not diesel, then gasoline, and multi-fuel diesels can use gasoline as well. Second thing is that if you dont have access to army supplies you would most likely use the civilian fuel, which is, again, diesel and gasoline. The point of Gas Turbine engines is that they can produce more power for their volume, that is the reason why Soviets decided to go for a gas turbine with their T-80 tanks. Their diesel engines are small and for a long time couldnt produce a lot of power at all (780-840hp compared to 1100-1250hp of gas turbines) so their use of gas turbine was completely justified. But when AGT1500 was developed there was already a diesel engine of similar performance that took up as much space, since both engines are really big compared to soviet ones, and thus, much better. Therefore there was no actual need to go for a gas turbine, the actual reason is more of a political nature.
It was a good video, but a lot of the issues that you point out make a lot more sense when you look at the context of why certain decisions were made. It's easy to look in hindsight and point out that maybe the gas turbine wasn't the best choice because diesel was far more efficient, but at the time early night vision wasn't anywhere as good as what's around today and Diesel has a far more obvious exhaust, given that generally the winner is he who fires first in a tank battle it's entirely possible that having that tiny edge was considered worth the trade off. If anything their biggest issue was lack of foresight in how quickly night vision technology would develop. Every decision that the design team made is in the context of "We could go to war with the Soviets in Europe at any time", and "We'll build it modular and improve on it later". For example they expected to be fighting defensively against hoards of T-72s and T-64s, so they built a tank that had good gun depression and could go hull down well, but didn't have the best fuel efficiency since they'd be fighting in their own territory and not extending their supply lines like the Soviets ostensibly would. The lack of armor on the front hull wouldn't matter anyways since they'd be angled in such a way that it couldn't be targeted. Tactical needs were considered more important than export. A lot of the reason you're getting backlash, I feel, is that in comparison to your videos on Soviet tanks you provide a lot less context and that makes you come off as somewhat biased. This might be entirely coincidental or it might be due to a comparative lack of knowledge in the two fields, but that's just how it is.
@@todo9633 not only that but the Soviets still used Gen 1 night vision devices which are pathetically outdated by 1980's standards also mind you they used them all the way up until the 90's
@@todo9633 MTU MB 873 has comparable, and if not better, performance when compared to AGT 1500. Consumes less fuel and is far cheaper. If you put MB 873 in Abrams you would have pretty much similar result performance wise. The fact that night vision wasnt "advanced" is completely wrong. Soviets had adopted night vision sights for their tank, both gunner and commander, back in the 60s, on top of that, all NATO tanks used IR, both passive and active, it wasnt as good as thermal sights, but there is absolutely no reason for you not to put the night vision sight. 1st gen IR sight beats not having one, by a long shot. Soviet tank commander even with 1st gen IR could see at like 800m, which is a lot, especially for European Theatre. Western IR could reach even farther than that. The hull design at the time did not predict massive improvements in projectile development, there is a reason why I havent mentioned it being a problem until I brought up later Abrams models. Having bad armor on the LFP is somewhat forgivable, but the UFP is several cms under the turret, it still has a lot of chances of getting hit and it is very weak. I havent provided more or less facts, its that this video covers more variants per say. T-90 tank only has 3 variants, where Abrams has a lot more to cover, that is why it appears to go more into detail, but it hardly does. It could also be the fact that I tried to make it more comedic, but people just cant take a joke and immediately took it as if I was making fun of Abrams...
We all need to be realistic when discussing any tank design. Every tank design is a series of compromises. No tank has a perfect blend of all the characteristics necessary to be the ideal tank. I agree that any decisions made by any army and the engineers who design a tank are a gamble, and such decisions are made to fight the last war. The best designs are perhaps those that can easily be modified to account for changing conditions. The Abrams has been successful so far. The US found itself trying to cope with conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan after it put tanks there. The Abrams was designed for a massive force on force battle where tanks would last a matter of minutes, and the M1 would be a winner if It could last a little bit longer than its Soviet counterparts. It was not designed for counterinsurgency, and it was a shocker when RPG's were taking out Abrams tanks, somewhat similar to the Soviet experience in Chechnya. The tank was modified accordingly and soldiered on. The Abrams is getting long in the tooth, and there are discussions about replacing it. Let's not forget that the next tank will take time, astronomical amounts of money to develop, and the designers will need to make a whole series of design decisions based upon the last war. In other words they will start all over again.
@@RedEffectChannel My point wasn't that night vision wasn't advanced, it was that it wasn't anywhere near as advanced as what we see in modern times. Just like how a stealth plane being slightly harder to spot on radar might only buy a second, but can still be the difference between life and death in a combat situation, a tank that is spotted a few seconds or even a fraction of a second later because it's harder to see in night vision might get a shot off first, and shooting first is very important. Same thing can apply to the gas turbine being quieter. If you hear tanks coming 1 mile away instead of 5 miles, that's time spent maneuvering or preparing for combat that you'll never get back, and time is the only resource that's invaluable.
Cons: one tank costs approximately 7 trillion dollars (for real, I did the math). Pros: that much uranium in one place would be constantly critical (undergoing a nuclear chain reaction), making it instantly lethal to anyone within about a hundred yards, meaning it is perhaps the deadliest tank ever made.
Joe Duke please list your schools, parents, religion, politics, teachers politics, profession, hobbies, thoughts, and neighbors thoughts. That way we can give a fuck.
Being a former tanker and troop commander, I could tell you no one was ever completely happy with their own country's tank and will also find shortcomings everywhere; at the same time, tankers will also always defend their own tanks when in comparison with those of other countries! There were hundreds of items on my wish list to 'improve' my life as a tanker then but in the end, I learn to live with the tank my country has provided. Aside from the quality of the actual tank itself, it's the crew, their training, experience and dedication that would win battles!
@@flyingpizza7486 nato tanks tend to focus on speed and maneuverability rather than just armornlike russian tanks, the abrams was meant to sit in a hull down position which is when the hull is covered and the turret is exposed to fire at tanks, no, abrams aint the best tank for say the russians or the germans, but for thr US and how it uses tanks and the abrams is good in its role for the US military,
The best overall tank would have to be the British Challenger 2 tank, especially now because it'll be fitted with a 130mm cannon, and it's armor is a lot better than the Abrams
7:16 It was for logistics and for export probably. Having a multifuel tank probably makes collaborating with other countries much easier. Similar to how the US would try to have the same ammo type for all their guns.
These tanks were going to be used to defend Europe from Russian attack. And Russian attack was going to involve nuking all major cities, followed by attack by a huge number of armored-infantry units and liberal usage of tactical nuclear weapons. So basically these tanks were going to be used in an apocalyptical environment without a logistic chain, using any kind of available fuel was a big plus.
To be truly fair. let real world experience speak for the Abrams. It has been used in quite a few encounters with Soviet bloc vehicles, and more modern Russian export models. It has fared well and brought the crews home safely. There are plenty of Soviet hulks out there to speak of the M1's weaknesses
Zayed Haroon says the one who’s tank barrel length and caliber over compensates for something else the only reason Abrams are ugly for you is because you have never seen actual beauty typical Russians
@@getstuffed2391 Compensating for what? The russians use a gun that is 5mm larger, but you are an american so you probaby dont know how much that is so i will put it in terms you understand, Its your dicks lenght
None of this is a surprise. Remember the 1st Gulf War? While the press called the Abrams invincible, the US Army actually realized that the Abrams was seriously flawed and that it was crew training that won the day. One high ranking officer even claimed that if his crews swapped equipment with the Iraqis they still would have won due to their training. The Saudis and the Turks are leaning the same lesson now. Poor crew training and improper deployment will leave any tank vulnerable no matter how well made.
If you mean T-72vsM1A1 at 73 easting the Abrams got there actually because of GPS on the tank. So yeah, also the T-72s had poor night vision and stuff.
Sure, that's true. Both sides had problems. For example, the M1 had a long trail of unarmoured fuel trucks following them for the all too frequent refuelings. This was a big problem that became a disaster in th 2nd Gulf war. I could talk about other problems. My point is we could go back and forth comparing strengths and weaknesses (ammunition, communications, export versions of tanks, C3I, etc....). The M1 wasn't the perfect weapon system it was presented as at the time and the US Army knew it. But it is true that the American crews were trained to a sharp edge at the NTC and other venues, and the US Army command believed that this was as significant a factor in the victory as the equipment.
Idk. My dads tank took an rpg to the vision block. And many shots from t72s and t55s with just leaving small scratches. This is also because he was in a m1a1 heavy. With extra du armor added. The gas turbine is for silence. Only a super power can afford to use them. You can see diesel engines and hear them miles out. All that said. The leopard looks way cooler and the t55 is my favorite tank.
@@theducklover2652 imagine the Germans, of all people, to be the ones to oppose one of the Strongest militaries in the world and in doing so, piss off literally the other strongest militaries Perhaps even China, because the US owes them money. Lol. Stfu dude. The time for the Germans to be manly and powerful past it was 80 years in the past and you guys fucked it up
Good video… I did not interpret this as calling the Abrams a “bad tank”. Instead it’s pointing out the limits of the design and how it has been updated to improve over time. Anyone who thinks it’s a bad tank needs to explain how it has performed so well in battle. If the argument is that some have been lost in combat then I’d say it’s a flawed argument. No tank is invincible and losses are more often related to the specific situation rather than the design. War is hell.
you are comparing the Abrams tank to the export model of the T-72A the T-72M1 which is 6 tons lighter than the base model, no composite armor, no reactive armour .... hell even the Swedish S-Tank 103 would chew up a T-72M1 the T-72M1 weighs just over 35 tons and the much smaller S-Tank 103C weighs 41.5 tons 6 tons more .... and it's the most advanced tank you've faced ... Abrams tanks got chewed up in Iraq and Yemen with Soviet era ATMS like Konkurs, and Metis yet your latest Tow missiles can't penetrate the T-90 or the Syrian T-72 AVs equipped with Kontact ERA blocks
@@SaorAlba1970 sounds like you’re watching too much RU-vid. I promise you in real life it’s not the way you think it is. To make a long story short, the Abrams is a great tank, probably so the best all things considered. But what really makes it special is the way it is operated by U.S. crews. Regarding your ATGM comments, losses due to misuse in COIN operations are tank agnostic. T-90, Abrams, or whatever, it wouldn’t make a difference because maneuver is different under those circumstances especially when operated by non American militaries.
Modern combat is all about combined arms. You can have the best tanks in the world and lose all of them, if you send them into battle with no support. Or you can have mediocre tanks and win, because you use all your available assets in an optimum way.
The reason the Abrams can use so many different fuel types is because they believed in a world war 3 scenario tank crews would have to scrounge for fuel.
Which is laughable, since ammo is harder to make than diesel is anyhow. You can make diesel out of just about any oil in a garage and just change the fuel injector heads to match the viscosity. Where are you gonna get more APFSDS rounds when you can't even produce deisel to run your tanks?
@@awesom6588 That comment didn't age well. Quite a few Russian tank commanders wishing they could burn any type of fuel in their tanks right about now.
6:09 for those wondering, by plugging in 52÷sin(8) into a calculator, I've found that that the upper plates effective thickness is 374mm. Not terrible, but still tearable
Fire is about all that can kill it, it seems. And even then, thats mostly just stuff on the outside burning the tank to ash. Actual AP? Eh, maybe if you get it in the side. As for the Arab Abrams, well, those suck.
@@sdrkrm iirc the Saudi operated M1A2S has the same protection level as an M1A2. APS are still not deployed on a large scale on any Abrams. TUSK is for specific use (hence the Urban part of Urban Survival Kit) and is not viable during regular operations due to increased weight and size. Crew survivability is a big plus for the Abrams, but it is likely you'd see more crew casualties when going up against modern weaponry, similar to the casualty rate of crew in Soviet MBTs when going up against modern Russian and US AT weaponry.
Yes they they never Destroyed by Enemy fire But they Been Destroyed By Sandals wearing Houthis with I Buck lighters in Yemen,one Buck vs 5,000,000 Priceless.
@@red88alert right. Have shit, just have enough shot. You don't need good shit, shit shit is good enough, if you have enough of it. Does not make it good shit.
red88alert yeah lmao right. It’s not like everytime a sherman crew saw a panzer 4 they thought it was a tiger and then they’d piss their pants and leave
So, as an American, I appreciate you taking some of the air out of our egos. Really. It's good to have a reality check. However, I have some nits to pick: * The military knew that the M1 as it debuted had a lot of problems relative to its competition. The designers knew that improved gun and armor technologies were coming along fairly soon, and they would be providing upgrades to the vehicle when those became available. The idea was to simply get the new platform out there, make sure the basic vehicle does what it's supposed to do, get the crews experience with it, and put the whiz-bang tech on it later. If that sounds unusually wise and thoughtful for an American weapons development program, it was. The Abrams was designed in the aftermath of the collapse of the MBT-70 program. That vehicle was a typical American development program; get all new shit, and put it all on a brand new vehicle. Well, uh, none of it worked, and it was deemed that by the time it could be made to work, it would all be obsolete. So the imperative with the replacement program was to just get a new vehicle out there that was, at worst, equivalent to the old one (the fundamentally WWII-era M60), but with lots of room to grow. And that's what they did. In that respect, the Abrams did exactly what it was supposed to do. It was designed with improved armor and a much larger gun in mind. * I'll give you that the gas turbine engine doesn't make a whole lot of sense today, and that the air filters were crap for the kind of fighting the US eventually did with the Abrams, but both of these things made sense for the purpose for which the Abrams was designed: Countering Soviet Deep Battle operations in Germany. The plan for the early 1980s was that the M60s would be the first line of armored defense, and that the M1s would be assigned to rapid response units that would move to meet any Soviet exploitation forces that moved into a breakthrough. Another requirement was moving from European port cities directly to combat without use of road haulers (which were still used whenever possible, but the capability to eschew them was considered desirable). Both of these scenarios involve extended, high-speed road marches, and you better believe that, for a 70 ton vehicle, a gas turbine was far more efficient in that use case than any diesel. So, again, these things made sense in the environment for which they were designed. EDIT: I completely forgot to mention the multi-fuel issue with the choice of the gas turbine. They can run on just about anything that burns, from gasoline to diesel to alcohol to coal dust (though not very long on the latter), and at the time, the US military was concerned that the tank force's need for fuel during a war with the Soviets would outstrip the supply. Remember that, in such a conflict, a lot of stuff would have to be shipped across the Atlantic from the US, just as in WWII, and the Soviets would try just as hard as the Germans did to shut down NATO's Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs). Having a tank force that could run on just about any kind of fuel meant that it would be less affected by setbacks in the Atlantic. Once again, the features of the tank make sense in the context for which they were designed, whether or not that context is still relevant. * The upper plate. You have to keep in mind, American tank doctrine of the time called for fighting hull-down whenever possible. Between this and the tiny size of the front plate relative to the rest of the tank, the designers didn't think this was a huge issue. I don't know enough to have an opinion about whether it is or not, I'm just pointing out what the design reasoning was. * Finally, you mentioned that we could put the L55 gun on the Abrams to improve its firepower. Yes and no. The important thing here is that the L55 gun has a barrel that is 1.3 meters longer, which doesn't sound like a lot, but it can make a lot of difference to a number of things. First, it can make a lot of difference in how maneuverable and usable the tank is in cluttered areas. German tank doctrine has historically liked to keep the enemy, regardless of what type, at arm's length, and the L55 gun fits into that scheme well. American tank doctrine, particularly recently, has allowed for tanks to get right into very built up areas. The extra barrel length of the L55 would make that more difficult, especially swinging the turret around to bear on different targets. Second, it will change the way certain munitions work. The canister round in particular, relies on a certain spread, and a longer barrel would materially alter that. Finally, in the words of The Chieftain, you have to remember that the two biggest considerations in the design of almost any American combat vehicle or land weapons system in general are the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. American weapons must, by definition, be amenable to being packed up on a ship or occasionally an aircraft, and being shipped to where it's going to be used. Increasing the barrel length of the tank means that fewer of them will fit on the ships that have to carry them, which means that more ships will be needed to move a given unit around. Given how few ships we have to do this, increasing their workload is probably a bad idea. All in all, though, good video.
I'm actually glad you made a video about the Abrams spotting the flaws, too many people are blinded by the propaganda about how good it is, don't get me wrong it's a great tank but it's not perfect as most people make it out to be.
eddie money as much as I would agree the govt. is a bunch of con artist selling us crap or better crap. Politics aside I loved my tank and tank crews. honestly the A1 variant was so simple I really enjoyed the simplicity of it. The A2s are nice for what they were, but adding electronics and adding more technology on a an old ass platform caused more electrical problems that it would help. Those were my issues. Also they always broke down, mostly crew maintenance or lack thereof. Crews always changing out is much more of a bigger threat than the enemy. But I never understood certain components being so cheaply made, which I will not name specifically for my brother still on tanks. The only thing that makes the tank awesome are the crews of it sometimes it’s not even the tank, the tank is a just a big home.
The abrams is not the best tank in the world, in fact there is no best tank in the world to begin with, but there is a best tank for a country and what doctrine they have
agreed, his was shown when danish proffesional soldiers in their leo 1a5 faced Germanys conscripted soldiers in their (then) new and facny leo 2A6, the Danish in their 1A5 whooped their asses several times.
Completely valid and true criticism. The only way we can learn from these oversights is by being educated in them and criticism. Good work on the video!
As a graduate of the US Army Armor Master Gunner, class of 12/1978; I enjoyed this video. You mentioned Michael Green, and I believe I knew this guy in the early 80s 'while assigned to the 1/149th Armor - ARNG.' He used to take photos of me giving classes on the M48A5 tank. Maybe it's a different Michael Green as I have since forgotten all about him. However, my ears perked up when I heard you mention his name.
@Daniet Ortego I call BS on your post ... There were no M48A5s in service for you to give lectures on. US Army retired all their M48s In the early 70s, 5 years before your claimed entrance date...
@@CH-pv2rz Thank you for your constructive criticism and contributions. Since you challenged my initial posting, I submit the following. You are both right and in error, but that's okay. Memories do fade at my age, but facts don't. I served in the Regular Army, the Army National Guard, and Army Reserves. In my reserve capacity, I attended active-duty schools and assignments under Title 32 and at least two non-school postings back to Title 10. The Master Gunner Course is an active-duty school at the Weapons Department in Fort Knox, Kentucky. Graduates serve as skilled instructors, from the turret basket to each gun muzzle and everything in between. Please know, this is an overview, as we are (were) responsible for considerably more. In my original brief post, I stated 'US Army' in generic terms, so this is where I may have unwittingly confused the reader. In retrospect, I believed my initial post was innocuous, and I did not anticipate scrutiny. But that's okay too; I welcome commentary, however rudimentary it may be. As an experienced instructor and public speaker, I forgot all about the occasional sharpshooter that keeps us on our toes. The M48A5 was still used in reserve units in the early '80s. In its Nov-Dec 1980 issue, ARMOR Magazine published my article 'Mini-Tank Range Construction - Parallex Considerations' where M48A5's served as the testbed. More on point, I still have at least two photos by Michael Green; one resides in Defense Journal Volume XIV - No. 7, page 399 - 1983. I was not the focus of the article, so my name is not included, and this one is not on a tank; rather, I served as a senior test analyst for FMC Corporation on the Bradley FV program. I'm the guy on the right loading 25mm. Damn, I do miss that hair. In any event, I was no less proud of serving in one category of the Army versus another. I appended my original post with single quotations to avoid confusion. My apologies to the video author, 'RedEffect,' for deviating from your topic.
@@vermas4654 in terms of availability....the Cheiftain set an all new record low of 35%. Even the Centurion (Cheiftains predecessor) in AVRE form lasted until 1993 with Cheiftain leaving service in 1994. Swap out the L60 for a modern Perkins diesel and it would be awesome with some Mexas added
It's kinda funny how biased people are. On the problems about the American tank there is 24k likes. But the video about the problems of Russia's new armata tanks only has 6k likes lol. Man there's a lot of biased people in the world.
What about us people who spent over two decades on and around tanks? Served on the M60A3, M1IP, and the M1A1? And was Master Gunner qualified on all three? Am I butthurt - or am I shaking my head at the mistakes in the video?
@@19KiloM1A1 I was a 19K (as anyone who knows anything can see from my handle), and this has so many we will go with "mistakes" (but it almost comes across as attempted misinformation on purpose) that it made me laugh. Was the M1 a perfect tank? No, it was not and still is not, as no such thing is out there. He said many times that the commander did not have night vision but that is only kind of true, you had the AN/VVS-2 that could be used by the driver, loader, and or commander. Not to mention the PVS-5's,-7's or 14's. He said that the Commander could not override the gunner, but that is just flat wrong, the commanders control does override the gunner's he just did not have a separate main gun sight. Yes, the M1 had the M68A1 105mm gun (or as the designer called it Royal Ordnance L7 a British gun) but it was able to kill any Soviet tank out there, we did not think that we needed the extra power of the 120mm, but the tank was designed to be able to upgrade to it when needed. Yes, it was known that the turbine engine was less fuel efficient, and you could get better efficiency from a diesel engine, but it did not have the responsiveness that the turbine had. He talked about how much more powerful the Soviet 125mm was, but (and maybe they did not have the latest and greatest ammo) in Desert Storm it was found lacking, but the M68 was not. So in short almost everything that he is saying is a fault was a design choice. Were they the best choice that depends on what you need, and how much you are willing to give up. For example when I was a brand new tanker I was talking with our BN Master Gunner about the Soviet Tank design's and he told me that they are probably the tank closest to the ideal design out there, however they fail to take into account the human factor. At 6'2" I was able to work in the Abrams with out any issues in any location, however when I had the chance (2003-4) to get into and spend some time in the Iraqi T-72's and other vehicles I would not have been able to operate in most of the positions as I was just to large. I do not know if it is true or not but after having seen them I can believe it, I have been told that even the small individuals that were used as Soviet Tankers could not effectively fight there tank for more than about a day at the most. My crew has spent as much as six weeks with out ever leaving the tank unmanned and combat ready (no more than one person away mostly getting chow for the crew, and at most a second within speaking distance checking tracks grabbing fuel hose and the like) and I would be surprised if we were even close to the longest of a US crew.
@@donaldhysa4836 Yea, that's why the gas turbine engine was chosen. Because the P/W ratio is excellent saving a lot of weight without losing power using different fuel types unlike multifuel diesel engines.
He doesn't say they suck though,but some are obsolete or pretty bad(like Arjun) by modern standard and it's true that everything has flaws but the militaries of those nations can find the flaws and try to solve those flaws later.
On performance, a Gas Turbine is definitely good. The difference between the Abrams and the T-80 is the fact that, the US Army logistics is capable of supporting the ravenous hunger of the Abrams, while Soviet Army logistics struggled to supply enough fuel for theirs. It's the same reason the Leopard 2 uses a diesel, and not a Gas Turbine, because none of the users of the Leopard 2 has the Logistical Capability to supply an armoured force that uses Gas Turbines.
@Alexnder90 F I think you didn't read what I said. I was talking about logistics. Not oil fields. Logistics is a very different beast than what you're talking about. Edit: I'm not talking about having the fuel for the tanks. I'm talking about getting said fuel to the tanks, when the tanks needed it. The US Army logistics could do that, the Soviet Army logistics didn't think it was worth the hassle.
As an American, it's unfortunate that a lot of people are blinded by the RAHHHH 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🦅 and other such memes. I get it, patriotism and what not. But they forget that the Abrams is far from invincible and that Abrams have indeed been lost in battle, regardless of model and upgrades (especially since the most famous footage shows the tank getting hit in an area that would disable any model of Abrams)
If you watch his videos when he talks above american equipment he never has anything good to say about it. You will never hear him say anything like that about Russian equipment. In the videos the Russian equipment is always that much better and we all know that just isn't true.
Don't change that engine. German tank crews in mixed Abrams/Leopard brigades love the heat signature of the gas turbine. Its their best protection against heat-guided anti-tank missiles.
@@leosjogren5244deliberately ignoring important context like the fact that German MTU was not in consideration for Abrams, the diesel used in the GM XM1 was the AVCR 1300. A far less capable engine that had numerous issues and negligible efficiency advantage at a higher weight while offering less power both overall and at lower RPMs, agt 1500 wasn’t politics, it was the better engine that was objectively worth the cost. And given the complete mess that was the MBT 70, the US was in no mood to listen to the Germans, in fact when the Leo 2AV was tested, it was found that the Germans lied about the weight by removing the composite armor and weighing without being at combat load. When the US ran the numbers of what a combat loaded 2AV would weigh? It was 64 tons as appose to the required 57 tons. When the 2nd round of testing began in October, the new categories were created to better define what the army expected not to mention they told the manufacturers what they could do better and improve on their designs based on what they observed in the may tests, the simplified categories put the most weight on what mattered to them most, not expensive bells and whistles that were unimportant extra costs. GM didn’t really work on their tank in the interim months, Chrysler basically rebuilt their tank from the ground up, and the Leo was unchanged When it was tallied up, the Leo was heavier than expected, it was less survivable, and it would cost 25% more compared to either of the XM1s No wonder the 2AV lost. Why was Chrysler chosen? No it wasn’t politics or a bailout like everyone says it was. It was objectively the best tank that achieved the goals the army wanted/ could afford. Why was the original M1 circa 1981 dog shit? Because that was the tank Congress was willing to pay for instead of what the army wanted. And it made do with what it had till M1A1 showed up 120mm gun, CITV. And depleted uranium, because Congress was ready to pay the higher price tag what the bells and whistles would incur. Makes sense?
As an american, I can say that I'm totally biased, no matter what I do, but hopefully I can overcome that. one thing you might want to correct is when you mention that the abrams would meet the same fate as russian tanks, which is not true due to the fact that an ammunition blowout, in most cases would not harm the crew, whereas on russian tanks, it turns them into astronaunts. you might have just been refering to them being knocked out in combat, but most people will probably think of the turret flying.
Bro💀Your stupid ass brain can realize that russian tanks would still be destroyed even if it had blowout panels? Wanna know why? Because the cumulative projectiles after penetration create a fucking hell inside it. It just doesn't matter, do you have panels or not, crew will still die in a similar way a soup in microwave. But ofc, you won't understand it
The only valid criticism would be the ammo rack in the front hull. But that's the same with most other tanks really. The Abrams is one of only a few tanks that doesn't have ammo in the front hull.
I heard that Poland said that Leopard 2A4 was found to be a "fatal" construction defect on the underside of the hull where the suspension cannot withstand more than 60 tons
Or - more likely - the ammunition compartment doors had been locked in the open position. If the ammo compartment doors were closed then the blow out panels would have been the 'path of least resistance' for venting an explosion. Another possibility is that the tank was damaged and had to be abandoned - so the ammo compartment doors were locked open and an explosive charge set off in the turret.
@@jeffkardosjr.3825 The ammo doors were designed to protect the crew even if there was a hole in them. Something that people fail to realize is that 'keeping the crew alive' was one of the primary requirements for the tank design. And we have lost very few tank crewmen despite losing several dozen tanks in combat over the years. Every KIA inside the tank was because whatever penetrated the tank also went through the crewman.
The M1 was not the tank the Army wanted. The M1 was the tank that the Army could get Congress to pay for. The M1A1 was the tank that the Army wanted - but had to wait for the M1 to prove itself before they could get Congress to pay for the more expensive M1A1. And there was also the issue of the US Army testing the German 120mm gun and rejecting it as 'not fit for service.'* We had to design a new gun (the M256) around the German 120mm gun barrel. * The US has much stricter safety requirements for weapons and ammunition than most other nations. Even today German 120mm ammunition cannot be fired from US tanks except in 'war emergency' situations where there was no US ammunition available.
I don't get when tanks from other countries get criticism from RedEfffect, people are like "yeah, no worries. The only way to improve is to recognize flaws". But when it comes to criticizing American tanks it instantly gets branded as "Russian propaganda"
Could we get a video about diesel engine vs gas turbine? The way it seems to mostly be put in your videos is that there are no benefits to gas turbine and there is no reason it was chosen for the Abrams.
Yeah honestly i think he ignored the benefits of the gas turbine whilst ignoring the fact that they adopted the engine for a reason. For one, there are less moving parts in a gas turbine engine compared to a diesel, the cost increase may be less so long term and they do tend to be very long lasting, which suits American doctrine nicely, plus they do give extra acceleration. Applying standard 'cost saving' measures to vehicles need not apply as much to America, a country that spends billions of dollars on random military equipment projects and then doesn't adopt anything from it, plus the US is noteworthy for their logistics and refuelling is not nearly as much of a problem as it is for other countries, if it was as much of an issue as it was made out to be they would have either used a diesel engine or had an APU from the start.
When USA wastes taxpayer money on Vietnam war: bad, make love not war, why should i pay for this bullshit? When USA wastes taxpayer money on fuel and logistics: USA is the greates country in the world so we can afford it! Gas turbine is good in trains or planes, for a tank that doesn't travel at top speed all the time. Also US military is lobbied a lot, its not an argument that "if it was bad they would have changed it, there is something we don't know", US military wasted billions of dollars on military projects, lobbying likely plays a large part in keeping the Abrams as it is.
Russia and other foreign nations experimented with turbines in tanks eventually recognizing them as inferior. The united states adopted turbines to deliberately give american tanks a significant range disadvantage. This shortcoming compliments next gen fighters like the F-35 having range disadvantages against russian and other fighter jets.
First versions of each tank series have always many weak points. The Abrahms was a contemporary of the Leopard 2 and already got the german 122mm Rheinmetall gun just before the Gulf war 1991. Perhaps the reason why they could defeat the older irakian T72 tanks with few losses.
that plus Iraqi T72 were shit tier and bottom barrels, and instances of tank crews abandoning tanks because they were more scared of CAS and air support
@@bobh9492 are the Abrams and Leo2s that popped turrets because of dudes in sandals with ATGMs and BMPs shit too? a Tank without support will be a death trap for its crew see Ukrainian tanks being blown up in arty fields Russian and US tanks being caught in ambush losing their prized tanks and whatever happened to the Leos 2A4s that Turkey lost aye dumbass hope those Leo2s and M1s make it to Ukraine so I can spam replies anc comments with their metal corpses
I think you are largely right in your critique of the M1's gas turbine engine. It is indeed a thirsty beast. While this is somewhat mitigated by the US Army's excellent logistics system (while crewing the M1, I never found myself in a situation where we didn't have all the fuel we could burn), a normal diesel engine would be great. In addition to high fuel consumption, the gas turbine also gives it a higher heat signature, which is important considering the fact that almost anyone worth fighting has thermals these days. And there is the whole blowing out the V-packs every couple of hurs. MTU is offering a conventional diesel upgrade, which I think would be the right direction for us to go, but I'm not holding my breath. That being said, the advantage of having DU both in the armor and the ammunition cannot be overstated! From the frontal arc, there really isn't a whole lot out there which can pierce the turret. Plus, a DU SABOT will go through just about anything. However, if the Germans were to apply DU to the Leo, that tank would have absolutely no peers! Anyway, great video!
Funny thing about the gas turbine is that it does have several advantages over diesel ones. For one, it's quieter, with the high pitched whine of the turbine not carrying anywhere near as far as the low rumble of diesels. Also, turbines are much lower maintenance engines with fewer moving parts, making them easier and cheaper to work on. I also don't see the US swapping to longer barrel guns because doing so would mean having to swap over from DU penetrators, which shatter way too easily at higher speeds, but still get comparable results to higher velocity penetrators.
1st of all, after serving 20 years, I can tell you that you do not know what you're talking about. Even if everything you said was true You're only talking about shortcomings of the Abrams and not the many many problems like Rounds in the autoloader that Make Russian tanks a ticking time bomb. explodes. I am very curious to know if you've ever served or been in a tank?
They don’t forget that, they just never knew it cause they aren’t engineers themselves and laugh at those poor guys who put our world together for us just for an average jerk to have a superiority complex over him
I mean, it did have some revolutionary things in it's design... Which was prompty clouded by years of beaucracy and an obsession with the 105mm gun. One step foward, two steps back when it comes to much of the US tank development, especially post WWII.
Original M1 had minimal protection for the sides, I think it was 50 mm RHA at most, the spaced armor could stop at most the older RPG 7s. While the protection for the turret was good, hull protection was (and still is) inferior to the soviet tanks, and then there is still the upper glacis weakness. About the thermal sight, I believe it was first introduced on M60A3. The ammunition storage was new, but it wasn't the same as the one in modern versions, it was inferior.
@@werrkowalski2985 Yes the hull was only around ~70mm, but the turret sides did have composite armor which was at least 300-400 mm against RPGs and missiles so it did provide some proteciton on the turret against most anti-tank weapons. For comparison a M60 or Centurion would be toasted in such a situation. The M60A3 was upgraded with thermals at the same time but the Abrams had it first I think. How exactly was the ammunitoon bunker different in the early version?
@Nico So what? So did T-80 turret sides. Plus it used ERA, T-80BV had better protection against RPGs due to its Kontakt-1 ERA. T-80U turret with Kontakt-5 had better protection all around than M1 turret. Why you are comparing M1 to M60 or centurion out of all tanks? Why not Chieftain or Challenger 1? Or Challenger 2 which came out a few years later? Why not Leopard 2? Its armor was nothing special, in fact it was inferior to the armor of best soviet tank at that time in effectiveness, again I will mention the most obvious weakness which is upper glacis, its an obvious design flaw, actually I think in early M1 it was like 38 mm, not that it matters. Its 105 mm gun was worse too. T-80U had comparable electronics to M1. M60A3 came out before M1. It had different blowout panels, and ammunition rack was for 105 mm shells.
@Nico Original M1 was still around at that time, and T-80B had comparable armor to M1. "in fact it was even worse because the sides didn't have any ERA at all, only the front "cheeks"." Thats still better. "there was a huge infrared illuminating light on the left side of the front turret next to the gun so there couldn't be any ERA place which left a huge gap weakspot on the turret front" Even without ERA the armor was comparable to early M1. What "gun shild"? Did you just made up a term? No tank at the time had composite sides, even many tanks today don't have composites in the sides. The panels were replaced, allegedly it didnt work that well, but I can't confrim it, if they worked well they wouldnt be replaced in M1A1 Yeah, but that was also possible in Leo 2, so it wasn't revolutionary.
I will defend the multiple fuel types. You have to remember since ww2 one major issue of war has been logistics. If you have to seize substandard fuel in your theater without proper logistics it's nice to be able to burn whatever to keep your tanks moving since moving tanks are much scarier than stationary ones. When pushing into Russia Germans could not get fuel out to the Eastern front very well because of the wet and nasty landscape which hindered the German forces though that affected everything going east. Rommel always had fuel shortage issues in Africa. So there is a rather straightforward reason why being able to burn anything for fuel is not such a bad move.
@@divoulos5758 the point is that you CAN use both diesel and gas (including high ethanol gas), which are plentiful everywhere. Getting low too far from your supply lines? Pull up to any gas station and drain the pumps Good luck running a diesel tank on gasoline...
So the logic as I understand it is: It's better to burn a ton more of the fuel you already have, so that you could be able to scavenge and then burn some more of whatever fuel you can find, versus just using a much more fuel-efficient engine from the start, that already runs on the most common fuel used by the vast majority of both enemy and allied units alike, as well as being available at most civilian fuel stations around the world. Your logic doesn't make sense.
@@raypolaris3381 ahhh that is because you misunderstanding something very straightforward. Not everyone in the world uses the same standards for their fuel and the most fuel efficient an engine is the more precise fuel you need. It like having a gun that can shoot any round it's just slightly substandard doing so but you have a lot more logistic mobility. If it does not make sense to you that you think fuel efficiency is what should be prioritized that's fine but the logic does terminate. Fuel with high amounts of sulfur are common in less developed countries since it's a very easy additive as an octane but it's brutal on engines because as it burns it gunks up very quickly. A more fuel efficient engine is not going to be able to use that fuel because it has more sensitive components that allows it to be more fuel efficient. Your understanding of the petroleum people use around the world is why you don't get my point but I've not only been lucky enough to travel but my family has done work around the world working on petroleum plants as operators and analyst and I promise your claim that all fuel is virtually the same is wrong. Many places in the world uses things for octanes that is not used in places like Brittan or the US because of pollution laws but many Asian and middle eastern don't have these are will produce fuel that would be detrimental to use in a more sensitive engine. So my logic does make sense when you are actually aware of the fuel situations around the world not being standardized.
The Abrams is still the world's best tank and getting better with every revised version. Meanwhile, at this point Ukraine has destroyed over 500 Russian tanks up to and including T-90s, and captured more which they are using against the Russians. The M1 is not perfect, but Russian tanks are a bad joke. So is the Russian army. Oh, and let's not forget, Russia's Black Sea fleet flagship, just got sunk by the Ukrainians...which is really funny when you notice that Ukraine doesn't have a Navy. Russia is just pathetic. So are the people who try to tell us that it's a strong country.
Oh boy, The youtuber is going to tell us all the engineers, scientists, and generals are wrong. All stemming from his years and years of experience playing Company of Heroes 2. Seriously why do people make these videos as if their non-existent experience is going to influence any engineer or strategist whose knowledge and insight vastly outweighs their own?
Well, This was a gem to find. You say the gas turbine engine is bad because it is more expensive... Yes, but it is also the ONLY tank engine that will run on regular unleaded, diesel, kerosene, and jet fuel... so what ever happens to be available in the are. You are clearly have never done ANY research on how logistics works. If you have a ton of vehicles all using the same type of fuel, it runs out REALLY fast. If you have a tank that can use jet fuel, you can literally top it off at the airport. Being able to use any fuel is a HUGE advantage when supplies are short. It was intended to fight a massive army of soviet tanks and it was thought that the soviet air force could destroy depos that had a lot of fuel for these tanks. You say the 105 was bad compared to Russian tanks, but the gun only needed to be big enough to actually destroy the enemy tanks, which the Israeli tanks did in the Yum Kippur war in 1973. The 105s (plus anti tank weapons) were the main weapon and that war resulted in 2300 destroyed or captured Russian tanks. They also took only 6 years before switching to the 120mm that is used on almost every NATO tank so that all allies can use the same ammo. Even if you wanted to go a little more modern, Desert Storm had the USMC using 105s on the M60s they still had in service and they did well against the Russian tanks in Kuwait. Interesting how you talk about the lack of armor, but the exact nature of the armor is completely classified, and no Iraqi tank destroyed an Abrams despite the fact that several were damaged and hit. So it seems a bit odd that YOU know that the armor would have been easily penetrated by Russian rounds when actual events tell a different story.
Aren't the Iraqi T-72s export versions and from what I heard, they at the time didn't have the latest Russian made APFSDS and we're incapable of firing ATGMs unlike base Russian Tanks.
@@josevictorionunez9312 but he didn't specify what type of ammunition needed to be used, he said any penetrator type ammo would have easily went through the upper plate.
You are wrong about RHA. You said that no armour can be stronger then the same thickens of RHA. Even British Chrobham armour was reported as being twice as protective as RHA. As far I know M1 uses level 1 first generation Chrobham armour supplemented in some models with DU inserts. I do not understand the hard time you gave to Challenger 2 saying the driver's periscope was a weak spot when according to you the whole Upper front plate of the M1's hull is a weak spot. You also did not mention TUSK...
@@todo9633 The Engine. Robust and reliable diesel engine The Armor. With add-on armor package from Rafael made in Israel, one of the best armored and protected tank in the world. The Gun. The most accurate gun acheiving the longest range hit in history The Ammo. Very accuate and deadly The Engine: Still better than Russian engines The Weight: Oof The Lower Glacis: *ADD-ON ARMOR INTENSIFIES *
@@thenumbah1birdman The lower Glacis is not unarmoured even on a base configuration Challenger 2. I've seen the damn thing in person, there is a good 250mm RHA in the base version. With the 800mm composite block addon, it has equal protection to the upper front plate.
@@todo9633 >The Engine. One of the most reliable engines in service with any NATO nation. Praised by the US, Germans and pretty much everyone else for its reliability. It is a tad underpowered which is why a projected upgrade is to give the C2 a 1500hp or 2000hp engine. >The Armor. Up until the advent of the Leopard 2A7, the Challenger 2 was the best protected tank in the world. With the first (and currently only) armour upgrade pack, it received a further: 1) A 6 inch anti-mine plate made of specialist composite added into its belly, 2) A 800mm composite armour place added to its lower front plate that brings protection up to that of the upper front plate 3) 350mm composite side skirts added to the forward two thirds of the hull which also have smaller ERA added over the top adding another 50mm RHA equivalent armour on top of the 650-750mm RHA equivalent the side skirts already give 4) 300mm plates adding to the sides of the turret 5) Bar armour adding to the read third of the hull and turret. All composite used in the upgrade is Dorchester (Chobham MK2) armour which is one of the best if not the best armour in the world. Its has ~1.7-1.8 times RHA against penetrator ammunition and ~2.1-2.4 times RHA against HEAT. >The Gun. The most accurate gun in NATO service and still very powerful. Whilst there are other guns in NATO usage that are more powerful, it still more than holds its own. The MoD is looking into either a 12mm, 125mm or 130mm smoothbore gun to replace it with however in order to allow the use of more varieties of ammo (which would also be more plentiful than the limited supply of ammo the C2 currently has). >The Ammo. Plenty powerful when targeted against most tanks the C2 would be expected to fight. >The Weight. The Challenger 2 with a full combat load equipped to theatre standard is 75 tons. An Abrams with a full combat load and equipped to US theatre standard comes in at around 70-72 tons. The Leopard 2 only saw a decrease in weight recently due to the use of a new type of armour however that is far from standard issue and there are rumblings that it also has much decreased protection. >The Lower Glacis Which has as standard a good 250mm of RHA. Theatre standard includes the use of a ~800mm block of dorchester armour as well. So there is no weakspot there.
most importantly, he got blow out ammo rack but its still one of the best tanks in the world and one of the most used the turbine was chosen for size, power, fuel diversity and the fact it could easily be made in America the military’s goal for the m1 was a main battle tank that was all American, well armoured with high speed and to be able to destroy multiple enemy vehicles before it was destroyed and it lives up to this goal while the leopard 2 is my personal favourite however i still hold the m1 in high regard
Well, as a Desert Storm veteran that fought closely with the M1 Abrams during the war, I feel I am not qualified to offer an opinion. I think the War Thunder guys have this topic covered.
@@gulskjegglive So you are proud to be a part of this war in irak because you are mentioned you are a veteran - something special I guess? The last veterans we had are from ww2 - nobody is proud or celebrating them.
@@gulskjegglive you invaded irak to change diapers? quite an new theory. you invaded the wrong country. next time you have to look at google- maps first. it went terribly wrong - you left a total mess behind killed hundred of thousands and produced a few millions of refugees because you destroyed their homes. nothing to be proud of
Being a former... No, not tanker of course, just Russian CBRN conscript - never ever been near a tank there, have no experience with it whatsoever. Loved the video though, solid presentation and argumentation.
