The World’s Best Tank: M1 Abrams Battle Tank
Today, the M1 Abrams, initially introduced in 1980, has gained a reputation as the world’s best tank. That’s no small feat considering the number of tanks available out there. The beastly machine was named after General Creighton Abrams, a prominent commander of military operations during the Vietnam War, and it’s a platform of technological innovation.
It’s equipped with main guns that can shoot projectiles up to 4.7 in (120mm) in size and has an extremely rigid armor fitted with extra layers of steel and depleted uranium. It also boasts caterpillar tracks powered by gas turbine engines. The M1A1 and the M1A2 also came out of the development of the M1 Abrams. Each iteration was heavier and slower but also fitted with far more powerful armaments and advanced technology.
The reason the M1 Abrams has proved so popular in war is because it is not just incredibly tough, it’s also surprisingly mobile. This mobility is due to its treads: continuous steel-plates linked together with chainmail. These treads allow the M1 to tackle all sorts of terrain that normal tires just could not. One thing is for sure, you don’t want to get stuck in this tank’s crossfires. We bet, however, that you do want to see it in action. In our video, we bring you footage of this beast in action and also discuss the science, technology, and engineering that goes into building such a dangerous war machine.
To get the latest science and technology news, subscribe to our newsletter "Blueprint" at bit.ly/3BDdN5e
Find out more information at bit.ly/3C7MaT5
#engineering #militarymechanics
⚙ Want to know more about the latest tech and innovations? Don’t Miss Out! *SUBSCRIBE & HIT THE BELL* 👉bit.ly/SubscribeNowIE
This tank has little secrets that nobody will ever know about. Information that is even spoon-feed to us crew and kept within the crew. Trust me when I say, there is no other tank like the Abrams. If the crew wants you dead, you will be...and never see it coming. Best job I ever had!
Have u ever felt what it seems like to get hit by Kornet while u r inside ur abrams? Gonna get toasted crew
@@invincible4702 After watching the Russian military struggle in Ukraine, the entire world now knows that it's a paper tiger. It's now very, very difficult to take it seriously.
@@classicgalactica5879 bullsh!t , check US losses in Vietnam
@@classicgalactica5879 at least ukraine is not as weak as vietnam
@@invincible4702 The Soviet Union got it's butt kicked in Afghanistan. China lost to Vietnam. What's your point?
The gas turbine engines on board are absolutely the best dammed turbine blades that money can buy ! I know , I worked in the manufacturing plant for 16 years in Toronto , Canada and handled over 1 million gas turbine blades for that engine program . That's all we made were military gas turbine blades . The engine program was called the AGT 1500 . As each shipment was ready , they were sent to our customer "The Textron/Lycoming Aircraft Company" . The turbine blades for the AGT1500 were made of a certain grade of Stainless Steel , best God dammed turbine blades in the world ! Other engine programs for other customers were MTU , Rolls Royce , General Electric , SNECMA , Pratt & Whitney , Garrett , Airesearch , Rocketdyne ; none of these used stainless steel turbine blades except for the AGT 1500 . I can still picture them vividly in my mind . Last I heard the US government had stock piled about 7000 finished AGT1500 engines in a US warehouse .
Thank you for the defense of America. This turbine is so much more power i think and much greater reliability than even a 1,500 hundred horsepower diesel engine.
General Electric makes a outstanding turbine....in fact I personally witnessed a fighting falcon engine in full afterburner in a test facility best jet in the world.
As a 50 year recently retired precision toolmaker who always worked in a job shop, hiw do you stay sane making the same damn part all day every day? Sounds like hell to me.
@@fubartotale3389 The list I gave is 8 companies long . Each customers parts were being worked on all over the plant . It's not one part being worked on for 16 years . Each customer had 5 to 15 different part numbers as well as experimental parts . The highest qty we produced was for MTU of Germany , they were for the RB 199 engine program that went into the standard NATO jet fighter called the Panavia Toronado .
Turbines are a shitty engine for a tank. Have you ever heard of Tarnfahrt? Not even possible with a turbine.
Hollywood make good movies 😂
40 dollar drone
I feel most modern western tanks are fairly equal. The big deciding factors being crew training,experience, and logistical support.
@Jardel really? I thought leo 2a6 and 2a7 are more advanced because they are newer models but maybe abrams was way ahead of its time
@@user-og8zx2fe4n I don't know, Ambrams has gotten a lot of upgrades over time, even if the basis is still the same.
Abrams are so advanced that it can not be deployed in Ukraine 🤣🤣🤣
@@princeo15 well that didn't age well.....
@@princeo15oh well RIP this statement
Well, except for the Leopard 2 2A6 probably. The Leo only needs 1/3 of the fuel of that thing, which is a real issue logistics-wise.
The leo has never proved itself in combat as far as i know. Until now it has only been a plaything in germany by the bundeswehr. US army has gathered valuable combat information in the last 2 decades that have been incorporated in the last abrams updates. Let’s see how the leo does in ukraine…
@@marcstein2510 You’re right with the „proofing in combat“ argument but on paper it’s better than the A1 Abrams and the Leo will get a major update to Leopard 3, so a complete new construction, soon.
@@marcstein2510 it was in afghanistan
@@TheFlooable it was in Afghanistan
Kinda a non factor if your owner and operator country is the USA. They will just send 5 trucks full of fuel for every tank they deploy 🤷
I was escort to two Hungarian General Officers on a visit to the Lima Army Tank Plant. These officers had been armor officers in the Hungarian Army trained on Soviet tank designs and they thought very highly of Russian equipment. The plant tour was a briefing on the M-1 and then a tour of the facility that was from raw material to driving a tank off the assembly line. We then took them to live fire, trained them and let them crew a tank. WOW, did they change their tune, They described their experience as "Star Wars".
and now we get to see them in action against said soviet tank. I'll bring the popcorn.
Is it common for high ranking officers to know how to drive a tank?
@@nealburns8815 In many instances, Officers were prohibited to drive vehicles. 82d Airborne had such policies when I was first with them. The only way I had a military drivers license was because I was a company motor officer and had to conduct test drives. Both Hungarian General Officers had been enlisted at one time and crewed AFVs..
@@nealburns8815 - You just jump in and drive. I drove a Bradley during the first Gulf War and stayed behind to load the armor onto ships afterward. I drove every vehicle in the arsenal without training.
@@nealburns8815 Not necessary. Only if they started in tanks on their rise through the ranks.
Multi-tread drifting!! Seriously though, that was really cool. Speaks about the skills of the operator.
GAAAAAS GAAAAS GAAAAS IM GONNA STEP ON THE GAS TONIIIIIIIGHT!
@@zombinathenecro8035 Imagine going Deja Vu on M1 Abrams, lmao
This seems an incredibly simplistic video. A lot of general tank info like describing the tracks, that all tanks have.
Yeah, so stupid. XD
Toyota is the best car in the world because it has wheels and an engine - this video in a nutshell
Frankly I don't need anyone to tell why I should be afraid of the abrams, or any other tank actually
I was afraid before watching the video
Thank you! At the end of the day, a tank is a tank
I worked in a aluminum factory that cast the aluminum for the sabots it shot.we saw a movie that showed it hitting a tank 5 miles away.awesome
Top choice for engaging enemy armor, but my favorite has always been a CAN round :)
Wait, why would they use aluminum for sabots? Isn't it usually Tungsten or depleted Uranium? Aluminum seems like it is on the opposite end of the spectrum as one of the least dense metals. Maybe you mean just the petals?
@@brooklyna007 sabot here means the petals like you said
I work at a factory, assembling drones. A few days ago my Lancet made fireworks out of an Abrams at 20 miles.
Imagine looking through binoculars and seeing that thing leveled at you.
They are awesome! And when they’re not busy protecting the fuel truck and the repair truck following immediately behind them, they make awesome weapons, too.
I think it really depends on who is using M1 Abrams. M1 Abrams is only suitable for the U.S. military in an open battle field against other MBTs. Two of the most crucial criteria for M1 Abrams survival in battle are: (1) you must rule the air and (2) you must have seamless fuel/logistic support. Saudi's campaign in Yeman demonstrated M1 Abrams' vulnerability. The Houthi fighters were able to destroy many M1 Abrams using only AK47, RPG and gasoline. First, the Houthi used RPGs to destroy the fuel supply trucks. Second, the Houthi fighters would lure Saudi M1 Abrams into a wild chase until the tank ran out of fuel (which happened very quickly). Third, the Houthi fighters would use AK47 to force the soldiers to stay inside the tanks. Finally, the Houthi fighters would pour gasoline over the tank and burn the soldiers inside the tank to death.
Bs
aaaand they gone, the Russians destroyed so much and so quickly that they already ordered a withdrawal lololol
T-72 B3 took it out with ONE shot
I was a tank platoon leader in Iraq in 2003-04. A few notes - you used images of Bradleys in several sequences. Those are not tanks but infantry fighting vehicles. Meant mostly for troop transport. - Yes in the 3 machine guns, no on all the machine guns on the top of the tank. (1) 240 m machine gun is located beside the main gun barrel. It is controlled by the gunner. There are several other things to nitpick, but those were the most blatant.
"Hey guys! Found the LT!"
I know nothing about tanks, but this sure seems like a dumb clip to me. 2 minutes in and the reason we should fear Abrams is because their shells are big and their continuous steel plate treads allow them to go places where other vehicles can't go? Can't that be said about just about every tank ever deployed?
These tanks aren't the greatest tanks in the world and the united states isn't telling you the full truth it all they are lying to you, just like how for some reason they can't tell you where all the money is being spent on. Anyways when United States went to war in the gulf War they forgot to mention one thing the type of tanks they were fighting they were very fucking old soviet tanks with no modernization done to them. Plus on top of that Iraq never truly trained their soldiers on tanks to use them correctly nor they had the money to fix them and that is literally factual. Second time in Iraq same shit united states fought a country with tanks that its soldiers barely used or even knew how to fix them because of money. It really shows how weak America is to go against countries with less experience knowing how to use a tank. Also these tanks aren't great they have many weak points lmao 🤣 in the Yemen war well the yemenies proved it that russian cornets take them out like nothing I've seen those videos. Another proof of the amount of bullshit the media and the united states is telling you. Same thing goes to the leopard 2s they been used in war and same shit russian cornets took them out. If you have to balls to speak the truth speak it right if not go back to your basement
@@rajababbasov8666 I have no idea if this is the best tank in the world or not. And neither do you Seems to me like that depends on the situation.
@Kermit T. Frog no I wasn't saying you in general. I was just responding to the first comment, I do not know what you know or not on the Abrams but just to give you heads up it's not the full truth the Abrams is a cool tank but to operate then is night mare,the soldiers that were operating in Iraq say its logistics is horrible they break down fast especially their optic systems
An American claiming it's the worlds greatest, where have i heard that before?
In their dream
hollyweird movies
The greatest tank ever made, yes, but they forgot to add that it can be destroyed by cheap shovels.
I was at Aberdeen proving grounds in 87 and heard during testing it jumped a Ditch, the turent spun and fired in mid air with a bullseye shot.
Look up the story of Cajone Eh Abrams tank. Most of the pictures you see of destroyed Abrams are this tank. And it took a lot to destroy it. The non-export model is not to be taken lightly by the enemy. Major a difference in export(iraqi , saudi etc..) and non-export models.
Good comment. Many forget the export has far less then the domestic versions.
@@ivykirby No. Lol,..no.
@Philip Kirby source??
It looks like some exports don’t have depleted uranium armour.
@Philip Kirby hmmm drone ammo will bounce back from the M1 arnor
What makes the M1 a great tank is everything on here plus a little more. The tank can shoot over just about any type of terrain at 30 to 45 mph and stay on target. Also has anti air rounds for low flying aircraft (drones and helicopters.) What makes it really stand out is it seamlessly integrates into AWACS who directs air to air and air to ground coordination for the battlefield. Basically you have Apaches , F-16’s ,F-18’s F-22 as well as even AC-130 gunships all working with tanks and troop carriers to do rapid strikes while leapfrogging the battlefield in all directions. It’s the same reason open air HUMVEES where able to take over airbases in Iraq. It’s chaos to defend against .
Chieftain could keep the gun on a moving target whole itself moving cross country in the late 1960's when it was the best tank in the world with the worst engine.
You’ve been playing too many video war games. All of the fighters you mention have various roles and can be reconnaissance, air to surface or air to air combat aircraft. For you to even think that open air Humvees took over entire airbases on there own is laughable. Btw, America wasn’t in Iraq on its own. The longest ever tank on tank kill was a British challenger 2 at 3.1 miles in the Iraq war and is the only tank to have never been destroyed in battle.
@@ababbington1 there’s books , articles and HBO did a mini series about the Recon Marines under General Matis. It’s what made him famous and what got Trump to pick him.
It's a great tank, probably same as leopards. Great while they meet Russia T90, then their effectiveness disappears.
@@GegeDxD The T-90 would probably pop it's turret at the mere sight of a western MBT.
Sounds like a car salesman who asks you "What do I have to do to get you behind the skid steer of this ummmmm...tank?"
World best coffin
Just came to say that the best tank ever made, just got destroyed by a 40 dollar drone strapped in a soviet era rpg.
I heard about that, that's why I am here to find out whether it's true or not.
I heard it was a washing machine riding russki with a rusty shovel that took the tank out, but you can't believe half the lies you hear online. #propaganda
Well another one got destroyed as of today (March 4th, 2024). If you consider heavy breacher that's built on the Abrams chassis then it can be counted as the third loss.
This tank is 40 years old and can still compete with modern tanks
@@keithjones605that lost to a soviet era rpg
I would always prefer a tank that runs with diesel over one that runs with kerosine
These turbine engines are much quieter than the desiel machines
I saw a film of a WWII tank battle in North Africa where the tanks were blasting at each other in plain sight. Then I saw a film of a WWII Naval Battle. The lead US ship laid down a thick smoke screen that hid the other ships from the Japanese. So, I have wondered if tanks ever use smoke screens to hid themselves from the enemy ?
The British Challenger hasn’t been knocked out by enemy action, unlike the Abrams…
When you deploy 10x less tanks, you expect 10x losses.... Challengers have never been deployed in the numbers the Abrams has.... trying to use the fact that a tank that's only seen combat a handful of times and in extremely small numbers(200 challengers vs 3,000+ Abrams in the case of the Persian Gulf War) as proof that it's superior is just hilariously dumb. The Challenger is just as good as the Abrams, and the Abrams just as good as the Challenger. The only reason Challengers haven't been destroyed by enemy action is that they've seen comparatively far less action than the Abrams has.
@Dan Ershen but Gordon didn't say that Challenger 2 was a better tank (personally I think they're equal but better for each tanks intended doctrine) only that the Chally 2 hadn't been knocked out by enemy fire like the Abrams has, which is true but also we have to remember that the Chally weighs more and a lot of that tends to come from armour packages (there are a variety of add/remove armour plates to suit any given environment) so it's going to stand up to more hits with a full suite of armour attached. I don't think the numbers thing is valid though; 1 Challenger and 1 Abrams in Iraq or Afghanistan will still have to face the same kinds of weaponry, and Challenger has proven it can withstand numerous hits from weaponry that Abrams wasn't able to. To me it depends on what you want your tank to do for which is better. Both tanks are excellent within their militaries war doctrine. I wouldn't want to be an enemy with those 2 tanks working together against me, chuck in the Leopard 2 as well and I'd be crapping my undies.
@@thecoon3193 And on top of that, most of the Abrams that were "knocked out" were by friendly fire.
@@Rapherd Isn’t that worse?!
@@foksmashdoor2272 For the commander it is much worse but it says less about the tank's defenses.
The Abrams is great for an open field tank on tank warfare. However, it’s drawbacks are it’s weight which can limit it’s ability to cross bridges. It also is a gas hog and requires very skilled technicians for its maintenance. It was perfect for desert storm. It’s questionable for terrain like Ukraine which has mushy ground and lots of rivers to cross.
The weight issue is a problem with all tanks, not just the Abrams. The gas isn't a problem because the US military has the support structure in place to keep them fueled (see Desert Storm again). And what's that about maintenance? I know it has flaws, but compared to other tanks it's nothing to be concerned about.
@@kamraam1464 russian tanks never had weight issues since their tank is small and uses auto loader, their tank can crosses many old,small bridges, and muddy/forest condition in the eastern europe where abrams would get stuck or simply destroy the bridge because of its weight
If Abrams were just transferred directly to Ukraine, they would probably struggle with them yes, but if it was supported by full US military infrastructure and training then I think they would wipe the floor with Russian armor.
@@mooseberry63 You run away from Afghanistan! Way? Conflict in Ukraine was set by the West and you comprehended what was coming next! You knew that Russian equipment would be given to locals(afghanis)as you are now doing to Ukraine.
@@ncc1701218 то що ти кажеш, тобі це сам путін на вухо нашептав? Руцкіє солдати захоплюють украінські землі , вбивають украінців а йому захід винний , де логіка чоловіче?
I am glad we are in the same side, Americans. Love and respect From Canada.
Lots of unistatians want to annex Canada, so beware of them (they also wanna annex Mexico and Cuba, but it isn't the point)
The Leopard 2 is widely regarded as the best tank in the world. That doesnt take anything away from the M1 however.
it already burn in ukraine, best tank in the world my ass
It was hidden .. but when finally appeared... it didn't last longer than the leaopard.
I miss my tank. “On the way!”
Unpopular opinion: Future iterations of the Abrams should not include an auto-loading system. More moving parts means more potential mechanical issues that could be critical to the survival of the crew. However, a 19-year-old Loader fueled by Red Bull and Nicotine doesn't jam.
I’m Canadian, I have no guns to fight this monster. 😂😂😂
No problem. You must have dogs and explosives. Strap a bomb to a dog and have it run underneath tank. KABOOM!!!
Best clown tank in the world ❤❤❤
Now I want to drive the tank after see this
Okay Indian LoL
Sickkk drift in the beginning!
Love that drifting I'm glad they're not coming for me
The Leopard 2 is much more balanced in it's skills and in it's limits. It's the #1 MBT in Europe and at Nato allies - even in the canadian army and always winner at european strong tank challange (SETC), without exception.
The majority of the viewers are Americans. Don’t come up with facts to this folks. Murica #1 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 Zumal der Abrams die Rheinmetall Kanone in L44 nutzt, unser Leo die L55.
Except it is yet to actually win in real combat.
Uh yeah you are really talking out of your Donkey…aka!
@@RMASUPERFLY This year in Ukraine is the real test of tanks.
Ironically the superior performance metrics of the M1 turbine was originally specifically targeted for operation in the woodlands of Europe, not the deserts of the middle east.
THE GREATEST TANK EVER MADE! except for the Challenger, possibly also the leopard
2023 they shall all be tested against the Russian invasion of Ukraine!
Nah the german Tiger 2 from ww2 is the best ever made 🫡
@@3l3 Nah Napolean's horse-drawn cannons were the best ever made. They conquered most of Europe.
This reminds me, the US ran a project to design a pen to work in space & Russians simply used a pencil. I just see a tech device that Ed’s huge maintenance & specialist operation, and a deep pocket.Simply put, an endless money PIT
All was well until super conductive graphite dust started floating around the ship, got sucked in by the vents, caused a short circuit, and the rocket fucking caught on fire and exploded. After the Apollo 1 disaster, the Soviets stopped using pencils too.
Title: why you should fear the abrams First example: mad drift skills
leopard 2 is best tank at this point
No, they still don't fix the vulnerable hull ammo storage.
I absolutely fear this tank if I encounter one of these whilst driving my 2007 Vauxhall Astra I will try to give it a wide berth.
Leopard 2 enters the room wining and saying:..but everybody keept telling me I was the best and I believed it,why are people so cruel? said the Leopard 2 and exited the room heart broken and crying inconsolably..
No tank is invincible.
Cool machine but I'd take a Bradley any day of the week. Youve got a squad of infantry in the back that can help each other pull security depending on the terrain. You can also swap out time in the turret on long observation and security missions
They are supposed to work in tandem.
@@Psych0technictell that to Russia
a drone makes them useless
It's true.They are used now only when you have(or have no choice) to go dark and are going against an army with equal drone strength.Then it goes to the ground.Drones are the future of warfare
As with every other tank on earth.
ok, this clip convinced me not to mess with the m1 abrams. Before I was considering messing with the abrams with my 2001 kia parked on my driveway, but this video talked me out of it.
Chad won the Toyota war against tanks, so you could do the same
The M1 Abrams (/ˈeɪbrəmz/)[8] is a third-generation American main battle tank designed by Chrysler Defense (now General Dynamics Land Systems)[9] and named for General Creighton Abrams. Conceived for modern armored ground warfare and now one of the heaviest tanks in service at nearly 68 short tons (62 metric tons), it introduced several modern technologies to US armored forces, including a multifuel turbine engine, sophisticated Chobham composite armor, a computer fire control system, separate ammunition storage in a blowout compartment, and NBC protection for crew safety. Initial models of the M1 were armed with a 105 mm M68 gun, while later variants feature a license-produced Rheinmetall 120 mm L/44 designated M256.
In my travel's, many people say that the Leopard 2 is comparable or better than the M1.
Challenger II gives it a good run for its money
I've read during the Gulf War, 9 Abrams were lost. None were lost to enemy fire. Unfortunately, 7 were lost to friendly fire, and 2 were intentionally scuttled as they broke down and couldn't be readily fixed. That tank is a monster!
No Challengers were taken out in the same wars
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958 Because challengers were few and far between. And weren't constantly put in harms way like the abrams. That's like saying. "The coast guard didn't lose any troops. they are the best" No. Because they didn't see intense fighting.
@@andrewwmacfadyen6958The more equipment you have deployed, the more that will have problems or breakdown. It's just a higher chance. Multiple factors as well.
That talks enough about the crew's incapability. How did they manage to hit their own dudes so many times?
Abrams is build like tank..💪
2 iteration? 1st M1 then IPM1 and then M1A1 (also M1A1HC) and Then! M1A2 (then SEPV1, SEPV2, SEP3)
NATO: Can we deliver Abram tanks to Ukraine? Putin: No tanks! NATO: Okay we will deliver HIMARS Putin: Hi Mars!
Definitely best job I ever had
The greatest tank ever made that's a bold statement seeing has the challenger 2 and leopard 2 would more than match it
Need combat experience. Not speculation on a sheet.
@@rxonmymind8362 both have
@@rxonmymind8362 Challenger, Gulf War, not lost a single tank unlike Abrams…
@@rxonmymind8362 challenger 2 has had combat experience and it was the Abrams that took losses one report of a challenger taking 12 hits and kept fighting
@@gordonmcmillan5556 The M1 needs the USAF to survive…
"Best tank ever made" destroyed with one hit by T-72 😆
Never against peer or near peer foes.
This is like a 12 year olds school project level.
Well it sure did well in Vietnam. The Leopard is the world’s best tank.
The Abrams entered service five whole years after the Vietnam War ended.
Far Better than a sports car 😂
Can't wait to see how it does!!!
Impressive !
“Best” vs guys with Ak47
The French Leclerc and German Leopard 2 maybe compete with the Abrams for the top spot, but the Abrams X would hands down be the best if it were ever built, which right now we really don't need to.
hahaha
A few years ago I saw a video of a battle where one mujahadeen slung a single grenade down its main gun. One guy in flip flops with an anti personnel grenade destroyed it. Lol
Its a good tank. I'mma own one before I die. Everyones trying to get a charger or a corvette. I want an Abrams.
Neva fear, just have the right stuff ready.
“FEAR ME” - M1 Abrams 2022
"The only thing they fear is you'' - Doom
badass tank
Bob Semple tank: hold my beer..
Am pretty sure I fear every kind of tank 😬😳😬
It's not it's only as good as the next tank that destroys it no tank ever made is the greatest .
OH PLEASE! SPARE ME THE HYPE!! A TANK'S STRENGTH IS ITS CREW
They will be replaced by no pay robots, just like McDonald’s employees
lemme see you sit in a T-62 and try and fight an Abrams
Didnt know I should fear tanks
We need an Abrams Leopard. 😂
Where can I get one?
she will be really tested now , but they will arrive when it is too late . they have to wait until the ground is dry, so that is already a disadvantage of that heavy tank
I saw that tank destroyed by the Russian army in Ukraine😆
Operated by Ukrainian civilians, likely a weaker version. Lol You think U.S. is sending Ukraine their best? LOL They are getting rid of old equipment.
Pretty much the King Tiger of modern times
The king tiger was pretty shit
@@btratemylegs.6342 but the Abrams isn’t but the king tiger was ass bad comparison
The challenger 2 is still king
@Jardel it had low production numbers, bad automotive components, for example, the hl230 engine that was used had a chance to backfire and start a fuel fire, the turret was cramped, and the transmission was overstressed by the crazy weight. All it had was it’s great gun, that could kill any allied tank, the only problem was if the unreliable tank could even make it to the fight without breaking down. Also the armor wasn’t great because of poor weld quality and less effective metals used to make the armor.
@Jardel wasn’t it the m26 Pershing the best?
Nice clip. But did they misspell the Leopard 2?
It's a great tank but has even better crews.
There is nothing to fear. When there is so much talk before seeing its true performance.
Lol okay Mr. Louis "Russian Troll" Tan.
@@SexyVistaNerd Bro, we saw the destruction of Abrams tanks in Iraq, even in Yemen. stop suck the ***** of america. you have to accept that the power of the countries in the war is very close.
Except we did see it’s performance… in the Middle East where they absolutely shredded you and your friends
@@waltertheterrible6062 My friend, I live in Iran & let me tell u, We are the ones who made the war expensive for America. We are the same people who soaked you in fear when we took you hostage in the Persian Gulf. We are the ones who acquired military technology in just 30 years without anyone giving us military technology, and our cheapest missiles and drones can destroy the US billion dollar ship. We are the same power that America and NATO are afraid to enter into a direct war with Unlike other Middle Eastern countries. We are the ones who helped our neighboring countries that were crushed as you say. We are the next power of the world order along with other powers. deal with it.
@@alikennyj3148 there's no "we", you are just a pawn of your authoritarian government.
T90M enter the chat 😅
They are so gorgeous
you guys all forgetting about the new Panther KF51. It will be the new king of tanks.
Why you should be afraid...because with the right crew one of these can drop multiple tanks in no time whatsoever. Add into it the rounds we play with, like the shotgun round we got in Iraq, yeah don't fuck with this bad boy. Best days in the Army were out at gunnery having fun with platoon and crew. Best steaks I've ever eaten were after qualifying on table 8.
Russian tanks could do the same and more easily (autoloader and a generally better idea on how to make tanks), but you don't see it because Russian soldiers are barely qualified to even walk
@tuluppampam on the auto loader, there's a problem compared to human loaders. We load faster. Average load time on the auto is 5-7 seconds or longer. The average time for a human loader is anywhere between 1.5- 3 seconds. As to the type of tanks, yeah, not really worried since they have been getting hammered by the Ukrainians, and half are broken to begin with. I'm still not worried about Russian tanks.
@@alexanderroloff8093 that's just not true. Autoloaders load faster than humans, but they tend to bring other complications, which is why they're not as widespread (source: Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a valid source because it provided them in this case) They make security lower, are prone to breaking, may require the gun to be brought to a neutral position (but given how quickly guns move nowadays it's almost not a problem in time), which might not be great if one wishes to maintain the same exact aim, and more They also bring advantages: they allow for faster firing, they allow tanks to be smaller, and there's no longer a need for a manual loader, which either makes them able to support the rest of the crew (perhaps rotating shifts, allowing for operations all day) or just deletes them from the tank
@tuluppampam Wikipedia isn't reliable on this. I was a tanker for 13yrs and I watched people (including me) load faster than auto loaders. Again humans can load faster than an auto. Watched in Fort Carson and again in Iraq when they got the 72s.
@@alexanderroloff8093 why would countries build tanks with autoloaders if they don't even load faster? If Wikipedia isn't correct, please edit it and make sure to add your references (personal experience doesn't count unless it's like an interview or something) But autoloaders are definitely faster, else they wouldn't have been developed for over 80 years They also tend to become faster with bigger shells (surprise! The heavier the shell, the longer it'll take to load properly, and the fewer you can load before becoming tired), when their advantage becomes significant All I can find on the internet shows that autoloaders are faster in combat situations, as humans aren't machines, but the extra set of hands and eyes for the crew can be very important Your opinion is one of the many I can find, and, given the rest I've seen, you seem to go against the majority. If this were a moral question it'd be lovely to discuss more in detail, but here we're trying to define a more general idea behind the speed of autoloaders, which is clearly objective and measurable. I simply cannot find anything suggesting autoloaders to be slower than humans, except if the human is loading in what is essentially a perfect situation (i.e. the tank is still and their not in combat, while just trying to dish out as many shots as possible), while autoloaders become quicker in combat and movement (not by a lot, but even 2 seconds can be the difference between returning home or not). Autoloaders also become a lot faster with artillery (because those shells are big), but I was considering tanks, so I don't care
Will it be the right tank for Ukraine? Some say that the required logistical support is excessive and cumbersome when compared to the German Leopard and the French Leclerc which can easily neautralize any of the fully deployed Russian tanks of the T type.
Theaters of war around the world - Peace my friend, take a deep breathe...
I'm glad we sent some of these beauties to Poland.
Well, we’re going to find out soon if it really is the greatest tank in the world. I sure hope I is. There’s going to be some extensive battlefield testing in Ukraine. Can’t wait to see what it can do against beat up T72s in the Donbas. I think they’ll do well. Slava Ukraine
Not very extensive considering they're only sending a few dozen sometime after the war has been won.
Call me crazy but i am afraid of all tanks
Even of the Venezuela tanks?
Let's build a tank four times the size of the M1. Nuke proof it.
What if a projectile hits those drive sprockets at the back? I think it's vulnerable
I bet Russia 🇷🇺 did their homework. 😅
Who is this video title addressed to? Average people? What average person wouldn't fear an Abrams🤣😂😂