Problems with Abrams tank
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- In this video we are going to take a look at Abrams tank and the problems the tank had and some of the problems that still persist in the latest variants. A lot of people say that Abrams is the best tank in the world and that there is no tank that could match it. But is that really the case? We will look at the original M1 Abrams and all the way to the most modern M1A2 variants.
Patreon: www.patreon.com/RedEffect
Check out Problems with T-90: • Problems with T-90 tank
or Problems with T-72: • Problems with T-72 tank
Sources:
"Images of War - M1 Abrams" Michael Green
"M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1993-2018" Steven J. Zaloga - Auta a dopravní prostředky
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.
Fun fact: They didnt use the German engine because they were afraid that the tank would gain a mind of its own and instinctively invade poland.
Not funny didnt laugh
@@pusheenthecat9264 28 people say otherwise
))
@@henryatkinson1479 i was joking ;w;
Lmao ,
Lol .. glad you did not
Point out the gun need
Erektion to load!!
Tiny Brain: Depleted Uranium in the armor.
Galaxy Brain: Enriched Uranium in the armor.
Tank glows red from spontaneous fissioning. So pure and powerful it can run on its own. It doesn't need living humans to control it.
the armor in the front slope is chabam, the exact same armor used in the challenger of britian and the leopard of germany lol
Big brain time.
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.
UNIVERSE SIZED BRAIN: Enriched Plutonium in the armor.
Engineers: how much fuel consumption do you want
us military: yes
Tiger: first time?
@@lingenjohansen5675 tiger is a old tank lol
How large is your budget anyway?
u.s military: *smiles*
Gotta use that oil well
Good thing we produce more fossil fuel than any other country in the world
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!
Well said! Ours not to reason why? Ours but to do or die :)
On the bright side, western tanks lack the current ejection system the russian tanks have.
Still overrated tank and didnt even face a real potential enemy
Russian tanks pretty much junk on modern Ukrainian battlefields…hahaha
@@capoone5002the abrams? The abrams/bradley hunter killer teams steamrolled the Iraqis in 91 and 2003
Top 2 things that defeat an Abrams tank:
1. Mud
2. A Toyota Hilux with a Kornet missile mounted on the bed.
@Gmail X atleast in nowadays, trophy can intercept kornet and it has been also recorded.
@Gmail X but in the other hand, if hellfire meets armata, even with hardkill protections on, it will die
@@andreidaner1300 says an mohammed xD
@@TheZippaduppa trohy can, but it isn't really deployed and the A3 wont doesn't include it either.
@@Alecxace usas abrams are currently being equipped with them
Everybody knows the best Tank is the Bob Semple tank!
Exactly
Kv2 is best tank
@@allsome5675 you mean the big box 2
Bob semple beats anything out there
The bicycle of death (the Tsar tank) is better
The M1 may be fuel inefficient, but when you're fighting on oil fields you can fuel up at any time :)
🤣
Yeah you are right... there is a gas pump connected to the oilrig😂👍
This man right here, is thinking as everyone should when operating the Abrams
I am 99% sure this is sarcasm....but these days, you can never be 100% sure....
They should've added a built-in refinery unit, where you just need to feed it with crude oil!
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.
well said, it's like finding a video game in heaps of garbage
yeah he claimed to set out to disprove that the tank was not the best, but ended up proving it wasnt perfect ;)
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 CZcams. 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.
Abrams is not the best tank in the world, there are no best tanks in the world, but there is a tank that's best at that country's doctrine
What many Armchair Generals usually didn't consider and just look at the tactiCOOL side.
No abrams is best in world but countrys have their respective best
@@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
@@hpep9159 so why has it constantly been awarded best tank in the world, because it is good at any role
Waiting for military experts to roast each other in comment section
"Experts"
The "wait for the guy who roasts those who roast" is over.
Congrats!
🥇
Rotten trolls is more like it
Joe Duke please list your schools, parents, religion, politics, teachers politics, profession, hobbies, thoughts, and neighbors thoughts. That way we can give a fuck.
These comments are so fucking annoying
Here is s problem:
THE TURRET IS NOT SYMETRICAL >:(
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.
If your fuel convoy (trains) gets hit, you can raid the helicopter guys for AV GAS, JP 4 or Kerosene and still run well.
@@larryhelstrom1881 Or even bio-ethanol.
Abarms multi-fuel allows it to run on liquidated hippies.
Diesel exist in every country
*_Reading the comments from the soldiers of the 101st chairborne_* 😂
I am a proud member of that unit!!
Hahaha a
looool, the dude that made this video is a ranking officer of that unit.
@@symple19 and you sir are why i hate americans
@@user-fd4il6pi9i who gives a fuck about comments from a nazi?
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.
@@stardekk1461 Doesn't help that Iraq was receiving very barebones T-72s too.
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.
broadybundy you honestly don’t need that much silence in tank to tank warfare
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!
this comment is like finding a video game in a dumpster
@@hooparom7430 yeah, the comment is based ik
Yea, the first gen of any advanced technology usually has hiccups,
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
Fair criticism, the only way to improve is to recognize flaws.
@Zayed Haroon Now *that* is *not* fair criticism.
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
I mean he's not wrong
“It’s tough but it ain’t invincible” -Sergeant Johnson Discussing the Scarab from Halo 2
Oh I know what the ladies like
WTF
@@sergeantjohnson1173 bruhh😂😂
Sergeant Johnson two sticks and a rock and we had to share the rock
@@sergeantjohnson1173 xD
These Americans got butt hurt and calling out him a russian bot while this video was made 3 years ago.
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.
our abrams was upgraded with a notification system every time the tank gets shot saying you got a hole in your right wing
Android the Onion press x to doubt. I highly doubt that our government wouldn’t notice if you did
@@theducklover2652 yeaaaa, suuuuuure, we boobytrapped your tanks because we will start another war. Because whatever reasons!
@@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
Android the Onion As a german I can agree on that
*YOU GOT A HOLE IN YOUR RIGHT WING*
As a former Tanker... can't really argue with your video. Well done.
Tell that to all the nay-sayers on this comment secction lol
well couldn't you argue that despite its higher fuel consumption? it had a much larger fuel tank compared to other MBTs?
The abrams tank runs out of fuel quicker than other MBTs.
@@minehffd2651 that wasn't ever a problem, see Iraq invasion where Russian tanks got embarrassed
Those were Soviet tanks.
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.
Yeah and? What other fuels will you find except gasoline or diesel? Everyone uses those and those are the most likely to find.
@@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...
@@xaderalert except modern diesel tank engines are multi fuel…
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.
People tend to forget that each piece of engineering comes with its set of problems and advantages.
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
Especially Westerners.
For every positive there is a equal or greater negative.
Yes , most people have short memory.
@@prathyushareddy9404Hahhah like Ruzzkies don't have their own problems :DDD
message for self proclamed tank expert: easy peasy lemon squeezy
Belka did nothing wrong
Russia is just like belka.
Anything shitty thing happens they're the ones to blame
"ABSOLUTLY" nothing wrong
Expect nepotism
@@warmbreeze7996 Obviously it was all Osea's fault.
of course
Oil price tanking badly. US military starts all their Abrams, oil price goes up. USA saves the world again!
Really good option hhhh
Environment: Am i a joke to you?
Good joke you made tho
@@mr.appalachia9787 how dare u #greta 🤣🤣🤣
@@Tenohekabanzai honestly no one gives a shit about the environment
@@flyingpizza7486
Until it means no more money
0:12 to be fair he realized his mistake and it's good you left that part in there
During WW2 combats: Tiger I vs T-34 85
Now: Leopard 2 vs T-72B3
Tiger vs IS Pz4 vs T34 more accurate
We all know the best tank is
Thomas The Tank
*sad Bob semple noises*
The Americans dropped a copy of him in Japan
A sensible comment at last!
@@abluerx7371 but not effective, Japan still alive and make one of the best tank in the world
*Arjun has joined the chat
I love it when people write "Abrahams" instead of abrams
I do too, because any opinion they proclaim afterward can be disregarded as they cannot even get the basic name right.
Oobrums
who cares people of usa dont even have their own languige. nation 200 years old born on blood of indians and build on blood of africans
@@gavrilo46 English is not even from England originally.
@@jamegumb7298 wait what?
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.
It’s a 120.
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
@@Ry-bo9hi yah all the t72s that pop their turrets are shit tier right? bullshit. all t72s are shit, fixed that for you.
also depleted uranium add on armor on top of the composite armor, t72 trash munitions bounced
@@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
0:47 the reason why early models mounted the M68 gun of the M60 was because they already had it in production. Ever since the start of it's development, its designers had intended for it to mount the Rheinmetall Rh-120. The problem was that they didn't yet have permission to produce it in the United States. This is why they made it so that the M1 could mount both the M68 AND Rh-120, so that once they did have the license to produce the German gun, they could easily re-arm their existing tanks.
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.
Russian tanks can run on vodka and peasant tears.
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?
they probably wouldnt have to scrounge so much if it didnt burn double the fuel of other tanks tho lol
@@awesom6588 its obviously designed as an excuse to give more money to oil companies. at this point im not sure if i said that ironically or not.
@@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.
People who say “Tank experts incoming” incoming.
People who say “”Tank experts incoming” incoming” have arrived.
George Kush people who say ”””tank experts incoming” incoming.” Incoming” have arrived
People who say "”””tank experts incoming” incoming.” Incoming” have arrived" are here
@@sirpwnsalotiii781 People who say """""Tank experts incoming" incoming."incoming."incoming"have arrived" are here" came.
@@Onyxar People who say """""Tank experts incoming" incoming."incoming."incoming"have arrived" are here" came"and are still here.
Something to keep in mind about the turbine engine. America designed the tank to run on the most abundant fuel source available to it. Jet fuel. When the American military has to go to war, it has to be shipped there by boat and plane. The most commonly used fuel you will find on carriers and planes? Jet fuel.
THAT was the reasoning.
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.
Get ready for those *MILITARY EXPERT* that are inbound to this comment section
Mostly muricans cod or war thunder players
excuse me, i know everything about my body fyi
@@m1a1abrams3 aRe YoU sUrE aBoUt ThAt
@@m1a1abrams3 abrams is iphone in tank world
@@igor7195 Don't forget BF and world of tanks players
War Thunder players be like: *ah yes make way for the expert*
Abrams still sucks in WT lol
@@valkigrakblad24 Top tier tanks is just absolute trash anyway
@@CrazyDutchguys i prefer Pz.4 f1
@@wonkagaming8750 puma gang or go home
@@CrazyDutchguys i am strumpanzer :D
From what I have heard about the engine is that it gives better maneuverability at lower RPMs and leaves less of an exhaust cloud behind compared to a diesel or a gas engine would.
much more of a thermal image though. Due to amount of heat.
@@seeweezeke You clearly don't understand how thermals work then. Doesn't matter how hot something is, all that matters is the temp difference between the object and its surroundings. A 500 degree engine and 700 degree engine will both look the same on thermals lol. That's a completely invalid criticism that you made.
@@kamraam1464 not from far distances it won't.
Abrams is gone
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.
JohnnyWishbone85
L 44 and L55 is a german tank cannon from Leopard 2A7+
Intriguing, thank you.
Omg, no thanks
Woodrow Wilson wished the US Army had Abram Tanks during WW1
Basically, author-dude can't phantom difference between 'flaw' and 'conscious design decision' for given requirement.
The U.S government wants to know your location
Allow or Allow
Ha
Oil
@@D_U_N_EU.S Army: did I hear oil
I’m drowning in liberty.
@@HazmatUnit TIME TO INVADE
The abrams is a bad tank compared to the tanks of its allies and rivals. I am glad you are honest about it.
4:35 fun fact: apfsds doesn’t bounce, it spalls
This was the last place where a JoJo Reference would be
Warspite BstWaifu especially a part 5 one lol
There is always place for a jojo reference
I'm not. Most slavs are massive otakus
@@pheonixshaman they love hentai
I support them
You thought it was serious channel about military, but it was me place for jojoke
He said leopard two
Subtitles: leper tool
The famous Leper tool nay floor
Ah yes I love the leper tool, good tank, its made 100% out of pure German steel!!
My mom always called it the leo pard
There will never be a perfect tank. It's a fine line between lethality, survivability and mobility.
Laughs in is-7
I dunno why people think the thing's invincible. A tank is a tank, some may be better or worse, but in the end, they can all still blow up.
Yeah,just like USA soldiers sing in that song:Panzerlied(USA tank version),their tanks are their final places
>Abrams has never been destroyed by enemy fire.
Aaa....what a delicious new meme we got here
As much as I love the bravado, one was taken out on the first "Thunder Run" into Baghdad, by an RPG, no less. Had to be destroyed in place.
@@QualityPen LOL, export M1A2s have no DU, TUSK and APS. Sure the tanks were hit and often lost, bit in the majority of cases their crew survived.
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.
I had a family member, who was a track vehicle mechanic in the first desert storm make alot of the same points u did...
Republican Guard?
Nah,every country that produced tank said "best" to compare one to another for every tank they Made (psst,for promotional only)
*Thanks for informative video!!!. Liked&Subcribed!!!*
Winston Churchill once said "The Americans will try everything until they come up with the right answer".
Gallipoli flashbacks...
@@ConfusedFroug Vietnam flashbacks....
@@MCLegionaire
Bay of pigs flashback
@@tigerii10.5cmpog4 ww2 flashbacks
@@ConfusedFroug There were no american soldiers at Gallipoli
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
@Jasper Percabeth Yeaaa, I got it already, this nigga's brain can't function properly
It really comes down to Doctrine. The US focuses heavily on Air and Naval superiority, and while their tanks are good don't get me wrong, they definitely aren't at the class where their potentially the undisputed best in their class, like a F-22 in terms of aircraft or the their supercarriers when it comes to navies.
Norman Schwarzkopf: "Hold my beer!"
Every tank has its shortcomings, there is no tank that's perfect. Ultimately its the crew and training that makes a tank great
Wtong
Derrick Walker you can’t even spell stfu kid
And luck
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.
You're wrong, the Bob semple is the perfect all-rounder.
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.
@@CH-pv2rz last commissioned M48A5s from all sorts of US Army was april 1992. Sorry dude but Phedowiki is a wrong "paper" to account on.
@@CH-pv2rz dude you just embarassed yourself....hard....like really hard....
@@CH-pv2rz Hope you've got a parka cause it just got TOLD in here.
The armor inspection in this video is absolutely untrue. The thickness of the armor on the Abrams is 100% classified. Where did you get your 38-51mm on the top front plate? The rest of what you said is pretty much true, but the armor on the Abrams has been shown to be very strong on all frontal surfaces. There wasn’t a single t72B that could penetrate it during the Gulf War. Also, the gas turbine engine is very efficient & offers much better acceleration than most diesel MBTs today. The T-14 has a higher top speed, though.
First, in Gulf war Iraq had T-72M1 not B. and were using 3BM-17 an export round made of steel. maybe they had 3BM22
@@76456 Didn't they both use the same gun, though? T-72B had better systems on board and better armor, right? I could be wrong. Regardless, the Abrams has been shown to be a very tough MBT. More have been destroyed by their own crews than have been destroyed by enemy fire. Many have been damaged by mines and RPG attacks/anti tank missiles and either repaired or destroyed by their crew. If I'm correct, no Abrams crew member has died in combat. The Abrams has not been tested by any modern MBT other than the T-72 variants that it has made contact with. Things could be very different encountering a T-14.
@@76456 & you're right, they didn't have very good rounds to fire at the Abrams. Decent, not the best.
@@kegankelly3073 yes, bit i think some Abrams personal have died. if it was on the field or hospital idk.
T-72M1 have worst armour and gun than T-72B and also worst fire control sistem since 72B sight could display the Distance and the Lead, wasn't automatic tho like on Abrams or even T-64. 72M1 only could show distance.
@@76456 okay, so t72m1 had a smaller gun or just lower velocity?
It’s been a damned good tank for the US. I’m a pilot, every aircraft I’ve flown who’s had issues.
As far as the gas turbine, the US has looked at both diesel and gas turbine tanks and vehicles. They could have changed the turbine multiple times. But there are major advantages to the terrine engine. So it all boils down to trade offs and which you value the most.
I’ll put the M-1 in US active units up against any Russian tank available today.
Me: *Wipes away tears with 693 billion dollar military budget*
Could probly be able to afford better tanks then ;)
@@BeardedNorthBiker remember in WW2 when the Germans had better tanks towards the end of the war and still got raped by the Sherman? Lmao
@@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
@@jokuvitunjuutalaine430 so why didnt the Germans win then?
1:36 missed the chance of strohiem say “German science is the greatest in the world”
That’s all I think of when playing any German WW2 tank
It is!!!
Hanz
The transmission broke
So great in fact, that operation paperclip started
I like how images of Abrams destroyed by Yemenis made it to the video.
Not mentioning that depleted uranium causes a lot of damage to crew and equipment over long periods of time
Reddit tank experts incoming...
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.
As a former tank commander for an Abrams I approve. Waaaaay to many flaws.
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.
eddie money but yes I feel like we should have the most advance tank however our training makes up for some of its flaws.
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
H Pep this ☝🏼
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
"The army will have diesel"
*narrator's voice: as the Ukrainian farmer hooked his tractor to the Russian tank, it became apparent The Army Did Not, In Fact, Have Diesel*
I love the Abrams, one of my favorite tanks, but I do accept that it’s not the best.
BT-7 is the best
@@partisan212 stfu pleb the bt5 is clearly the superior MBT
Your pfp, it disturbs me
Lean Boof yes it didn’t have to the mighty bob semple tank
My favorite is panzer VIII maus
6:48 Multifuel diesels? Say hello to the Chieftain's engine having a poor track record!
"Poor" The Leyland L60 is beyond poor....it nerfed the Chieftains outright.
@@jyralnadreth4442 the british are all about fair play. With a good engine the chieftain would have been too OP so they nerfed it for fairness
@@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
@@jyralnadreth4442 but then it wouldn't have been fair. So the British kept it nerfed.
However what your forgetting. Is that the cheaften came out in 1963 meaning that the abrams came out 17 years later
You can't complain about the 105mm gun, it was a decoy so that Soviets would see it and not feel the need to upgrade the armor of their tanks
More like they didn't have better guns at the time.
@@prathyushareddy9404 it was a strategic move
Thats hilariously dumb haha
*Interesting video!*
good points. Now lets create the m2 abrams
no
M1 abrams was same like t-80
When M1 Abrams uses gas turbine engine, it's good. If it's T-80, it sucks. Damn logic
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.
The same with the silhouette.
Abrams has big silhouette: Good
T-14 has a big silhouette: big target.
@@Kuraimizu9152
Never heard that one honestly.
@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.
@Alexnder90 F
I expanded a bit on my point, in an edit in my previous comment.
Interesting, Thanks for your point of view....
But still 10 times better protection than T-72B/T-90A? Since the threat is in atgms, not projectiles.
99% of comments: here come the "military experts" to get butthurt
Actual 1% are complaining "military experts"
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?
@@colincampbell767 I bet 99 % get their info from Janes. I asked if any a Kilos and I bet I get none.
@@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.
@@colincampbell767 or how about 1st cav 19 kilos ????? Desert Storm is a great example of capacity. So many errors
@@19KiloM1A1 I was 19k. 1st cav. The Abrams was/is a beast . Fast, powerful and reliable. Is it the best now? Not sure. Definitely up there though
So he watched Jojo too
Life in the Zone you expected someone who didn’t watch Jojo but it was me! Dio!
Life in the Zone me
A man of culture
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.
Having passive NVG's for both the gunner and commander can still be worse than just having thermals for the gunner. The max range of the passive NVG system on the original T-72 is only 600 meters.
they have both passive and active, atleast according to the video
Shhhh don't tell the Computer Commanders this fact.
Literally looking back at your vids an hour ago, and now this is uploaded. Ahhh what a good day today is.
LOL, and THATS why the M1 didnt last long. The M1A1 fixed basically all those first problems. Never mind the M1A1HA, HC, M1A2, SEP and A2C lol.
CMDRFandragon well said!
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.
Same with the t 14
Colin Campbell No offense but I heard du ammunition can be detrimental to crewmen's health
@@hschan5976 And ive heard thats largely just a myth to try to make DU and the Abrams sound bad.
I really like your intro with the "red eyes guy".
Some of your videos doesn't have it.
Thanks for the videos ;)
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"
Classic americsn behaviour when they're beloved abrams isn't god like in everything
This is the problem for RedEffect's viewers
They're so bias, that they'll start raging when his favorit tank got criticized
6:38 when the tank is mooing
🤣🤣🤣
I like how most of the comments are talking about the memes and butthurt that I dont see
I guess some people just assume that there are certain words/people in the comment sections to have something to comment on
Take a look at the Like/Dislike ratio. Obviously, some are butthurt xD
The butthurts were smart, they just came to dislike and disappeared, they knew that they can't win with valid arguments lmao
There are actually some, it's just that you have to check by newest or go pretty deep down
*They’re making memes to hide their salts*
Fun Fact:
While the M1 tankers rotating the with the motor, the poor soviet tankers had to rotate the turret with the manuel handle.
that's not true, unless you are on an angle
Another salty boi trying to use straw man fallacies to ignore the flaws of the abrams
Gotta love the trope that "fun fact" now almost always means its bs
I think we've reached a point in tank technology to where it's whoever spots the other first and gets the first shot off is going to win.
Next Problem with Leopard2 Tank
lol it would be a short video
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
@Life in the Zone Oof
Next Problem with Bob Semple tank
How dare you diss my all 'merican 70 ton freedom dispensing tank of a waifu
(This is obliviously a joke)
A N I M E
N
I
M
E
“Obliviously a joke” *obviously
Lol M1 abrams is as heavy as an freaking Tiger II so it will break every bridge it crosses
Kitsune - San gotta say, m1 abrams is THICC in the front like most sexy women but has no ass since that is only 50mm
@@joebank6556 imagine being a grammar nazi
The amount of cope and seethe in the comments
From both sides honestly
I would disagree about the upper plate thickness issue that you raise. We're not talking about rolled homogenous steel, after all. That being said, the shot trap formed by the frontal overhang of the turret is a major problem. Other than that relatively minor quibble, I have to say that the rest of your points were well formed & articulated. Good video.
The performance of the Abrams is directly proportional to the training of the crew + supply line.
You know the capabilities of the tank matter too tho
That statement is true for every tank
@@donaldhysa4836 yh but the tank is superbly built
Very true
@@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.
tank: *exists*
RedEffect: this tank sucks
tank: but--
RedEffect: *NO EXCEPTIONS*
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.
Leclerc is better
If they are bad then they are bad tanks
If they are great then they are great tank
Have you ever been in combat with it .its a dam good tank
@@yosawin3018 fair enough
This thumbnail is literally a tank from my platoon... It's like that because someone left the driver's door hatch open... It's freaking hilarious to see this picture again
I don’t know why people are saying the M1 Abrams is America’s main battle tank we all know it’s the A-10 warthog😂
American tanker Manuel step one: identifying targets step two: call in air support step three: leave
I was a very well trained, and experienced mechanic, not just for the M1, but for almost every ground vehicle from the M151A2 jeep to the M1. On the fuel issue you brought up, the US DOD has done its best to have all engines run off of either DF9 (Diesel Fuel 9) and JP9 (Jet Propellant 9). Also, the DOD has done its best to bring all combat ground vehicles into the theory that all should carry enough fuel to move 300 miles until refuel is necessary. I fully agree that the M1 needs improvements in a few areas, but thankfully Tank and Automotive Command (TACOM) is keeping contact with NATO/OTAN allies and is developing improvements. Keep in mind that the greatest barrier to improving US equipment is the lobbying efforts of government contractors to keep other companies from receiving benefit from the military contracts to the point they refuse to even pay royalties for better designs.
@@raptors222222 I tanked on both the M60 series and M1 series tanks. m1 start up takes longer ,is not quieter, and is susceptible to clogged air filters. we had to clean them every 4 hours during Desert Storm. Sand also damages the compressor. Piston diesel engines are more forgiving of the type of abuse seen in combat and realistic training.
@@raptors222222 I don't like it how confident you are, although completly wrong.
@@raptors222222 Smaller than a diesel engine with same amount of power, maybe, and packs more thrust to weight, but is a jet engine simpler? Simpler on a drawing, maybe, but it consumes high amounts of air and needs to ingest it all. In clean, open air, jet engines are very reliable. But in dusty enviroments, dieselengines eats less air and is thus easier to filter properly. They are also more efficient and need smaller fuel tanks.
daguard411 my M1A2 SEP V2 runs on JP8 fam.
Indeed, it's nearly impossible for a forein company to sell military equipment. Just because of the buy american act. For instantie, the new air-tanker. Grumman and Airbus had time and time again the best proposal. But the lobbyists covinced the senate to buy the boeing bid because it's "completely" made in the USA. (All electronics are made by ferranti)
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!
w12 in t72 t90 use 20% less of tank what is 15 ton less have. Turbine generate more power. Hybride engine will be sice more complicate.
And less be clear some version of t72 have almos menual turn tiret.
also most russian tank have very shity gun elevation
The reason why Abrams uses turbine engine is weight and size.
Turbine engines weigh less and have smaller size when compared to diesel engines for the same power output. Putting a diesel engine to Abrams would make it simply too big and heavy.
Subbed the fisrt meme was funny asf keep up the good work