We should provide 500 of them to Ukraine.

@postaboks

2 жыл бұрын

@Aqua Fyre Especially now they only have T-34's left. :D

@williamleggett5924

2 жыл бұрын

Inspired me to go back to work in industry

@williamleggett5924

2 жыл бұрын

May we find a way for peace through superior firepower

@Dwg256

2 жыл бұрын

5

@captainxact4493

Жыл бұрын

I dont think thats a good idea..

Great tank even back in the 80s when I was in

actually they no longer us uranium armor, that was cold war tech, today they use titanium poly boranium LR5 steel plating, it can take force of IEDs, mortars and not even slow down, and russian tank shells has been seen of just bouncing off of the abrams in the 80s when they first came out

@devendoffing7004

2 жыл бұрын

Where did you get that?

@mmoarchives2542

2 жыл бұрын

@@devendoffing7004 i've studied military science for 17 years

@tank7275

2 жыл бұрын

Do remember that those russian shells were from the 70s at best.

@brandonbowerstx

2 жыл бұрын

@@devendoffing7004 : Personal experience with 6th Tank Bn in the Persian Gulf War. T-72 main gun rounds bounced right off the glacis plates.

@devendoffing7004

2 жыл бұрын

@@brandonbowerstx im talking about when they switched from depleted uranium armor to titanium alloy

Abrahams is one of the best tanks in the world.. but lets face it.. of all the best tanks in the world. Abrahams is the most combat tested, therefore had the most trial by fire. But in terms of mobility, Leopard is better. For protection the challenger 2 is said to be better. Americans will be getting even more competition from European arms manufacturers where Swedish, German and Brittish weapons are some of the best, if not the best in their own categories.

@jonathanbartron3658

2 жыл бұрын

The Israeli Merkva has seen combat as well. Also, I think the Korean K2 and the Japanese Type 10 deserve consideration.

@gorilla6099

2 жыл бұрын

Challenger is in no way better protected than the Abrams. Especially not in the front.

@jonathanbartron3658

Жыл бұрын

@Random Human, the problem with tank comparisons is that for the most part, we're comparing dry stats. The people who own the tanks have shown an historic reluctance to pit their tanks against other tanks solely for the purpose of settling a KZread comments argument. I can state without equivocation however, that the M1 Abrams is a better tank than the T-55, T-62 and T-72 because it slaughtered them. Same for the old, venerable M60 used by the USMC. Other than comparing combat outcomes, it's all just stat wrasslin'.

@raymondarthards9512

Жыл бұрын

Abraham Tanks already been proven in combat in three War so far Challenger just in Two War Leopard Tank just in Afghanistan for very short time and Leclerck Thank just in Afghanistan and SUDAN Republic T-72,T-64,T-80 just in Afghanistan for two years but no successful British losted 2 Challengers in Afghanistan Germany 1 in Afghanistan France 3 in Afghanistan , United States 0 in Afghanistan ,0 in Kuwait Golf War, 0 in Irak War ,now you tell me Who is the best Tank in World 🌎 military equipments . That why those Countries are using Abraham Tanks United States Saudi Arabia QUATAR. Kuwait Australia 🦘 South Korea Japan 🗾

@txhansolo22

Жыл бұрын

all of those tanks are excellent and would fare well against the Abrams in combat. the Leopard and Challenger especially share a common mbt design concept with the Abrams from the 1970's to counter the USSR. the good news is Britain and Germany along with other NATO nations are allies and if they weren't the bad news .. for them .. is the US has by far more Abrams tanks than they do combined. Russia has the most but the vast bulk are older designs with serious flaws that are no match for the Abrams. even if Russia's most recent new tanks are as good as the Abrams, they have very few of them.

"Most people" do not think the Abrams is the world's best tank. Every single poll I have seen lists the Leopard 2A6/7 as the best. Not most polls; ALL POllS.

@MrViking69

2 жыл бұрын

Yes same for the the research I have seen.

@k9killer221

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrViking69 Sweden can afford to buy any tank they want. They went with the Leopard, and they did test it against the Abrams. Same with Switzerland.

@rogerpeterson9631

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrViking69 so what Abraham's will not have to fight those tanks

@zipz8423

Жыл бұрын

@@k9killer221 They arent making new M1s any longer.

3:55 Next tank: bow track, LorR Forward, Center, Aft, Stern going up. Power shaft to one eccentric gear/track. All tracks of equal length. (Need only replace 1/5th instead of whole track.) What else can you think of?

Aaaaw, just in time for my Birthday! I love the gift of Ukraine getting a New Super Tank M1 Abrams with the upgrade! 😜😜

@charliebrenton4421

2 жыл бұрын

Ivan’s tank crews would be pooping their pantskis.

@kingofsomething3250

2 жыл бұрын

@@charliebrenton4421 considering if they even have a tank even more, the turret would already be sky-high

Did you just describe the T-64, T-72 and T-80 as "PERFECT"? Are you serious? Do you know anything about tanks at all? These are fatally FLAWED tanks. Ask the thousands of dead Iraqi crewmen how "perfect" soviet era tanks were/are.

@knand9936

Жыл бұрын

for their time period, they were a match for western tanks.. unfortunately, the Iraqi's were not properly trained, did not have the best strategy, and lacked the right additional tech (like night vision in some cases) in their tanks during the large tank battles in the first Iraq war. Also, the US airforce essentially dominated the air, slaughtering Iraqi tanks on the ground. The simple fact was that the US was a first class army fighting a 2nd class enemy....

@MrJdsenior

Жыл бұрын

Or Russians and Ukrainians, now, three quarters of a year or so into the war. Russian tanks aren't called turret tossers for nothing. And pretty much every weapon on the battlefield, even some of it hand carried, like Javelin/Stugna/RPGs at close range/etc will go through them like a knife through rancid butter on a hot day. And I've seen estimated 250' tall T72 turret tosses that somersaulted 3 1/2 times. T-80s aren't any better. Designing a tank with the shells on the INSIDE, surrounding the crew, basically, and in one case literally, is not the brightest idea on the planet. Sounds exactly like the Russians. I'm not sure that they didn't invent stupid.

Poland bought 250 Abrams SEPV3 tanks from the USA. In addition, we have about 250 PT-91 hard tanks which are a very deep modernization of the T-72. These tanks that we could give to Ukraine, but we would have to get some older versions of the Abrams tank from the USA. Poland has about 50 Leopard 2 PL tanks and 100 Leopard 2A5 tanks and 100 Leopard 2A4 tanks. We could give these tanks to countries such as Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia in return, and they would give their tanks to Ukraine. That would be another 250 tanks that Ukraine would receive. That's 500 tanks in total. But for the next tanks that we would donate, we would also have to receive tanks from the USA or the UK. Poland has 1000 BWP1 infantry fighting vehicles and 1000 Rosomak wheeled combat vehicles, this equipment can also be exchanged for something else to strengthen Ukraine. In total, Ukraine would receive 500 tanks: 250 PT-91hard, 100 T-80, 100 modernized T-72, 50 others. Ukraine could count on: 1000 old IFVs1 and 1000 modernized IFVs for the Rosomaki. But these are huge amounts and it is associated with a cost, so the US itself would not be able to bear this cost and the European Union and other NATO countries would have to support the process of replacing Polish equipment that we are handing over to others for equipment for Ukraine ... So NATO and the European Union would have to cover the cost of repairs of American Abrams tanks and combat vehicles that Poland would receive for its equipment given to Ukraine. Is it possible ?

@SFX95901

2 жыл бұрын

As the report mentioned, the Abrams production plant pretty much stopped building new tanks. It would seem that in order to supply that amount of armor gratis to our NATO allies to replace what could be immediately transferred to Ukraine (in addition of course to preparation for what seems like a more belligerent future), that the US absolutely MUST begin to produce both the M2 Abrams again, while fast tracking a next gen hybrid drive main battle tank. I will digress here for a bit to muse on where I think we should be going in the next decade with a US Main Battle Tank System. I think there are too many advantages to the hybrid drive concept for them not to do it, stealth being chief among them - the reduced noise & IR signature alone, it does away with the transmission, while electric motors of course provide all the torque a tank needs to move instantly, allowing them to move more precisely in all conditions; while maintaining the ability to charge itself, perhaps with a high output flex fuel turbine generator. The flexibility of this approach could also power future pulsed energy weapons & high tech active camouflage systems. Unlike automakers with their silly fixed battery packs - all military vehicles need to have standardized battery units which can be ejected and replaced in only a couple of minutes by a fully automated system with a new fully charged unit (or under 15 minutes using manual gear). I think we need to develop secondary, what I will call “drone armored weapon platforms” to accompany the main battle tanks - think a smaller tank without the crew, but still with an auto loading main gun, or other more flexible weapons systems (such as might be specialized for urban warfare with the ability to fully elevate or depress and fire rounds to destroy reinforced concrete structures) which would be far smaller, lighter, faster and more agile, (harder to see, harder to hit, and much harder to destroy when you do) because it doesn’t need to house or protect a crew. A few of these now function as the AI assisted semi autonomous wingmen for each main battle tank, able to magnify their lethality- to range out and around them acting as scouting and ambush elements - which the tank commander still controls by giving them commands and missions, but which have enough intelligence to carry out those commands without him having to micromanage them - except perhaps to initiate their engagement of enemy elements or targets. This would of course depend on a reliable IFF system for all friendly ground elements. A second type of armored drone unit could be used to provide cover from air attack, with sensors & defenses to defend against both a drone like the predator, smaller suicide drones, and even small drone swarm attacks (there, pulsed energy weapons should be sufficient to rapidly defeat the little buggers), weapons such as Javelin which rise up and then attack from above (pretty much the only thing that may be fast enough would be a high energy weapon) and an anti aircraft missile capability. There may also be some utility in an accompanying autonomous armored vehicle for armored groups like this that is simply a huge generator, battery carrier, and towed fuel tank, capable of doing the automatic swap in the field for all of these vehicles, so they would not have to run their own generator units and lose their stealthiness while engaged. Just my musings on where our armored capabilities might have to be by say 2030 if we want to stay competitive with nations such as China which have no constraints on their rate of innovation and are not limited by people who are so heavily invested in “that’s just the way we do it”, or “We can’t cut that weapons system, it’s made in my district”(Hey Congressman - if they made that, they can make other stuff too, and there will be a lot more jobs to go around if we let go of the antiquated stuff that won the last war and start thinking about what it will take to dominate the next generation battlefield). One thing that I think we are ignoring- is the inherent vulnerabilities in AI & Machine Learning. While it is capable of amazing feats of pattern recognition - that means it is vulnerable to another machine that is specifically designed to create AI illusions. We both need to exploit the heavy Chinese investment and reliance on AI & ML in their systems, while guarding against being attacked by these same systemic vulnerabilities. Back onto the subject at hand- The US has always had the bad habit of just leaving it’s military hardware anywhere it has deployed it’s military forces. We have the worlds best logistics at getting our military and their supplies deployed and engaged, and then bringing our soldiers back. The problem is we don’t bring the rest of our military hardware back to even mothball it, sell or distribute it to ally’s, etc. The result is we leave people like the Taliban, the Iraqi factions, ISiS, etc- with an incredible amount of the best and most modern US fighting equipment (fortunately, I don’t think we left many M1s in Afghanistan, but I’m not sure). I do believe that the Ukrainian’s are being trained on NATO equipment and in the M1 as we speak, and since they are engaged with the Russians now - if the M1s should go anywhere, they should go to Ukraine if they can fight them, frankly I think we probably should be running an entire Ukrainian class through the same training we use to teach our own kids how to fight an armored battle in our equipment. I do think that it’s a great idea to send ALL of that stuff to Ukraine and to have the US replace it with US M1 & Sheridans as appropriate, as well as other US armored vehicles (South Korea makes one helluva tank too, they’ve had good reason to, and while Israel has shown an extreme reluctance to supply any equipment to Ukraine, money talks and they may well be willing to supply military equipment to NATO countries). All of NATO would benefit from dumping the old Russian 💩 and standardizing on stuff that will greatly simplify logistics and supply in any future conflicts. US companies might want to explore licensing manufacturing some of these vehicles to countries such as Poland or even Ukraine once they put down their insane belligerent neighbor to the east, as this certainly would strengthen the bonds of the alliance and the capabilities of all involved should the world devolve further. Something that sadly I fear we must prepare for.

@swaghauler8334

2 жыл бұрын

@@SFX95901 The US has 3700 Abrams in STORAGE. To completely replace our current stocks on active duty, we would need to keep about 2200 of these. That leaves about 1500 tanks for NATO lend-lease. Germany has about 400 Leopard 2A4s in storage too.

@kamilloburdello4454

2 жыл бұрын

@@SFX95901 Buddy ... the tank of the future is, as the name suggests, the future ... Ukraine may not have this future. Ukrainians may not have a future ... because you do not know what the Russians are capable of ... They can murder civilians by millions, forcing them to work as slaves somewhere in Noril or other part of Siberia. Poland will build its tank of the future together with South Korea on the basis of the K2 Black Panther. The Korean version of the tank intended for Norway is to be released first, followed by the K2 PL version. Korea has a different terrain specification - their tanks will fight differently than those in Poland. Poland must have tanks that will be able to defeat the Russian T-14 Armata ...

@kamilloburdello4454

2 жыл бұрын

@@swaghauler8334 As far as I know, the Germans do not have the Leopard 2A4s anymore ... The only thing they have left is the old wrecks in the scrap yard ... They offered the Czechs 14 old leopars and a similar amount was offered to Slovakia for 30 T-72 tanks and Slovakia She did not agree ... You know ... no one needs old tanks in such a bad technical condition because their renovation with a modification, for example, as in the case of Poland to the 2 PL version, is practically the cost of a new tank! In addition, it takes too long because the Germans are making problems ...

@tedmoss

2 жыл бұрын

@@SFX95901 Well you really got into it didn't you?

The king of the battlefield is artillery.

@swaghauler8334

2 жыл бұрын

This! The Infantry is the Queen of Battle (a reference to the flexibility of the Queen in chess).

@downrange4073

2 жыл бұрын

....and of course Armor is the combat arm of decision.

@kravenfoxbodies2479

2 жыл бұрын

Thats the idea, before they see the first Tank rolling up if anyone is left alive to see it.

@pedromiguelalmeida4446

2 жыл бұрын

artillery is one of other systems to support tanks deployments in the battlefield, I agree. Air superiority should be seen as nº1.

The title is completely inaccurate. There are no new tests mentioned

I would have thought that satlelight guided rockets with drones would be all that would be necessary to fight today's war

@swampy6194

Жыл бұрын

And you would be correct. Tanks are but ironclad coffins.

@randym7961

Жыл бұрын

And they said the F-4 phantom didn't need a gun because with missiles there would be no up close dog fighting! OOPS Boots on the ground and armor will always be required . If someone comes up with a counter you invent something better..

Give the Ukrainian army the M1 tanks

@BattleSloths

Жыл бұрын

no wtf

Yes indeed. I really like the Abrams tank.

@19FlyingWombat76

2 жыл бұрын

You would get pissed on the Abe in no time when you see the Leopard 2A7V or other Variants who got a multible option as even so far making the base of the German Howitzers ;)

@philthai99

2 жыл бұрын

The Abrams is the only tank that have been proven. Its upgraded and i will stick with it. I like the Leopard 2 and the LeClerc tanks well.

No, Ukraine does not need spam-in-a-can tanks. Recon and fire control drone squads, for now, are the cook-off Kings of War.

First of all the best nato tank is the German Leopard 2A7 and the ukrainian war does NOT show that the tank is the "king of war" it is rather the opposite that especially this war shows how easily a tank can be knocked out by one person, with a Javelin for example..

@johnparkside4932

Жыл бұрын

i would happen to agree however the point still remains. How much combat experience does the leopard have compared to the abrams. it's good on paper but let see it out in the field. as for the "king of war" Tank is still supreme as long as it's supported by the infantry. with out it the tank is just a over weight cannon. One this is for Certian. IF Ukraine got 500 abrams it would have DEVASTATED the Russians at this point... but perhaps Putin would have sent his crack troops in not just his crappy conscripts.

@MrJdsenior

Жыл бұрын

Sure, they get knocked out eventually, and in Ukraine a lot more by artillery than Javelins/Stugnas/RPGs/etc, if the vids are any indication, but they do a LOT of damage in the mean time. The tank is still a POWERFUL weapon of war. Just ask Ukrainians on the front line, if you don't believe it. I have heard several say just that. Probably a lot less so against the US than Ukraine, though, as we saw in the various 'sand wars'. From what I understand the Iraqi's would usually just hop out waving a white flag when they heard a heli or jet in the area, but I imagine quite a few got cooked inside, too. Obviously the likes of Longbow, A10s, F16s, etc (basically EVERY large weapon) are not in Ukraine. I also know there were some tank to tank face offs in those Iraqi wars, the second one, anyway, at least that is what I've heard from those that were there.

Anti-tank missile success against Russian tanks in Ukraine shows the turret TOP ARMOR needs to be greatly increased. Give the Ukrainian army all the ABRAMS tanks it can use!

@tank7275

2 жыл бұрын

Dude you’re not gonna be able to protect against top attack missiles without adding like 5 extra tonnes onto the weight and making one of the heavier tanks in nato THE heaviest tank in nato.

@knand9936

Жыл бұрын

I think giving the Abrams to the Ukrainians is bad idea... its too heavy to properly operate in that terrain.... probably a better idea to sell them warthogs or IFVs

Don't advocate for war. Wars are only inevitable and not under egos of who is stronger. Once you go through a great war and you feel the losses, you will regret starting it

Seeing what they need 💥💣❤️❤️🙏🙏🙏💯

Only the army's getting them Marine corps doesn't use tanks anymore

2:57 Angled to pitch or yaw projectile into a skid? Hardened cups like Chain Mail to deflect and dissipate force?

The M1A2 Abrams is a beautiful tank, I want it to remain operational for many more decades, and never need to be replaced from the abramsx. And I want it upgraded from M1A2 to M1A3 Abrams! We must not rely too much on killer robots, it would be dispoyalty and dishonor. Because robots don't have a soul, a heart and they don't know loyalty and honor. Winning wars requires human soldiers who have hearts, souls, and who know loyalty and honor!

Land vehicles are old news. Drones are the new beast of war.

@Hellenkeller777

2 жыл бұрын

Russians use tanks without infantry or air support. A tank used correctly is still a battlefield monster.

@scottcampbell5536

2 жыл бұрын

@@Hellenkeller777 the US and the Ukraine have long-range missile systems that have ranges of 70km. That is well beyond the range of any Russian tank or Chinese one for that matter. Drones have a longer range too. Tanks are just rolling targets for missiles.

@pedromiguelalmeida4446

2 жыл бұрын

@@scottcampbell5536 if you support the tank divisions with proper artillery shelling, having air superiority, and use other mechanized vehicles amongst with tanks, those are still beasts on the battlefield. You're messing russian doctrine with western doctrine regarding the use of the tank on the battlefield.

@scottcampbell5536

2 жыл бұрын

@@pedromiguelalmeida4446 whatever that means. Get a better translator.

We should give them to Ukraine immediately! Thank you for the awesome video.

@aditgaming8728

2 жыл бұрын

It could take long for them to get use to the nuw tank and its systems since they mostly use tanks from the soviet era which are less advanced and have a comoltely different philosophy that the abrams or other nato tanks

@SohelBahjat

2 жыл бұрын

@@aditgaming8728 It's our fault we didn't help them in the first Russian invasion in 2014. Still, it is worth it to try.

@aditgaming8728

2 жыл бұрын

@@SohelBahjat i mean the militias could try to stall the russians while the military can train thery're tankers to operate the abrams or the leapord 2 if they send them

@johna.anderson922

2 жыл бұрын

@@aditgaming8728 *"It's our fault we didn't help them in the first Russian invasion in 2014."* You mean the US/CIA orchestrated regime change? Russia invaded nobody in 2014. Instead, a bunch of armed Nazis with the help of the US occupied the government. But NATO trained tens of thousand of troops since 2014, without considering the weapons. You are living in a delusion. *"i mean the militias could try to stall the russians"* You mean the neo-nazis? Those with beautiful tats? Well, the Russians are wiping them out, I don't know if there is anybody left.

@johna.anderson922

2 жыл бұрын

Really? That's exactly what the Russians are waiting for, they need new targets to hit. Besides, don't you have any other problem in the US that you want your taxes to go there and make the military industrial complex rich?

Aren't we at the point when every MBT needs an APS, like Trophy, and can therefore dispense with some armour, so it can do things like cross bridges?

@David-nu6kw

2 жыл бұрын

I agree.

@phil20_20

2 жыл бұрын

You must mean, Sep4...

@swaghauler8334

2 жыл бұрын

Except that they only work successfully about half the time.

@michaeldillery9232

2 жыл бұрын

We Have the Trophy active protection system for 4 of are Heavy Brigades and it works very well. All Nato and U.S Tanks are moving quickly to install the Trophy our competing system.

what music is in the background? they didnt list it anywhere

I think the only place the Abrams is called "the hard headed Abrams" is in this video. I have never heard this in my life before watching this.

To me, it wouldn't make any difference since we saw how badly design the Russian T-series tanks were. With new anti-tank missles now htting the top of the turret, they really, really need to find a heck alot more protection for the top head of the turret.

@mohsaid

Жыл бұрын

and also a way to protect the ammo since it's easily exposed witch make the whole turret explode

@MrJdsenior

Жыл бұрын

@@mohsaid Not in the Abrams, as I understand it. The ammo, other than the charge being loaded, is in an exterior compartment with armor between the crew and it, and reduced strength blowout plates to direct much of the energy away from the crew direction. US designers aren't Russian designers, not by a LONG SHOT.

I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE 500 UKRAIN 500 tanks

@glori30175

2 жыл бұрын

Give them 1000

@austinbunyard3284

2 жыл бұрын

We don't need to give them any tanks even m60s they don't know how to run them and it would take too long to train them

@MrJdsenior

Жыл бұрын

@@austinbunyard3284 I doubt it. The Ukrainians came up on systems like HIMARS VERY quickly, and are now relating back to other militaries completely new and innovative ways to use some of the gifted weaponry. For a Ukrainian tank crew in need of a new tank, cause theirs got busted, I think that would be especially true. They are already using Leopards, that is a pretty good indication that it would be doable. Large scale repairs, like rebarreling are being done in Poland, by NATO military crews, but still, the same could be done with Abrams. I expect a lot of the electronics, etc are modular and basically plug, replace, and ship back to a rearward maintenance group that can analyze and repair to the lower levels.

@dannyhewitt3652

Жыл бұрын

Maybe they could take the money is wife spent for clothes and maybe by one

The leopard went up against m1a1 and leopard won in every class, however they wanted tanks built in house so they said the Abrams outclassed the leopard.

@that207guy7

2 жыл бұрын

When did the leopard go up against the m1a1?

@NITWIT856

2 жыл бұрын

@@that207guy7 when they were developing a new tank for the u.s and Germany it was between the two to get the contract

@Slycarlo

2 жыл бұрын

And how many tank on tank engagement did Leopard 2 had? None, heck even the challenger tank which always came at last position in every competition had proven to be a excellent tank in Iraq, meanwhile Turkish Leo2 got decimated

@that207guy7

2 жыл бұрын

@@NITWIT856 It did outclass the leopard. The abrams is more versatile and more multipurpose. The Leo 2 is designed and used more as fire support at range, not really what the US wanted. Leo 2 also has a much weaker hull, which is why it fails miserably on the frontlines (like it did in syria)

@pedromiguelalmeida4446

2 жыл бұрын

@@that207guy7 not for sure the L2A7V. I would take that leopard for any Abrams out there at the present. About the Challenger 2, even the latest french Léclerc may me superior, the Challenger is being said to be a flop and in need to replacement. But if you want the better tank, try to get out of your confort zone and give some thoughts not only to the Merkava IV, but mostly to the South Korean K2 - those tanks, yes: probably the best in the world.

Laughs in Leopard 2 without the constant need of maintenance and Parts like so much shown in Iraq/Afghanistan aso aso aso The Abe will never reach that level.....leave alone the KF51

Buy all means Give Ukrian Abrams to destroy Ruskes With and then well Know for shure

When will you learn not to give the enemy the secrets to your weakness so they plan and attack it. Now you have to fix the weakness before it's goes to war again. It's time to build the next generation of tanks with the latest technology but not so heavy and more stealth and can defend it self from missile attack.

is that the 60tp from the blitz hangar website if u play blitz, then me: :D

I still feel like the Leo 2 is better

Are we watching the same Russia-Ukraine war?!?! Vehicles are getting wrecked on both sides.

@patclark2186

2 жыл бұрын

US has like 6000 M1 tanks. Just sitting around in case US is ever invaded . Since thats never going to happen we should give them to Ukraine .. They were built to destroy Russian armor we should see how it all shakes out. It would cost us next to nothing. It might keep women and children safe.

@Kingfishertim24

2 жыл бұрын

@@patclark2186 every piece of sensitive equipment headed to Ukraine runs the risk of capture and exploitation by the Russians. The repercussions of losing that battlefield edge can last decades.

@patclark2186

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kingfishertim24 But .. every time we overfly any portion of land that is not USA, we take the very same risk. Using the same logic we should keep all our aircraft grounded and all our warships in harbor. Wait a sec.. I''m starting to remember something about Russian /Iranian/ Israeli/Chinese spys and a guy named Snowden.

@johna.anderson922

2 жыл бұрын

@@Kingfishertim24 *"every piece of sensitive equipment headed to Ukraine runs the risk of capture and exploitation by the Russians."* Or, the risk of being blown up, which is exactly what is happening.

@johna.anderson922

2 жыл бұрын

If you are "watching" it, considering one side has been obliterated in the west, you are watching one side of the Ukraine war. Only one point of view, only one reality.

dude, are you on this channel aswell? Subbed

It takes a long time to train on the Abrams. Maybe they should start now if they want them before the war ends...

IMO the best are The Challenger 2 but the 3 is on its way ( never lost in battle & battle tested as much as the M1 just less numbers on the battle field ) Then The M1 then the Leopard.. but the new German tank with the 130mill smoth boar looks to out class them all in every way the T series dont even count

@raymondarthards9512

Жыл бұрын

We have in Taxas 800 Abrahm 1-AM Tanks Stickers Humvees Bradley nini Tanks Transport Trucks A lots of Military equipments getting rusty. Driving by Houston duck Port Beaumont, Texas Duck Port Port Arthur, Texas Duck Port If you driving by you can see it

it's all fun in games in a tank till the aircraft come to mess you up

@patclark2186

2 жыл бұрын

and aircraft cost like $50,000 an hour to fly. and for every hour flown its like 60 hours of maintainise.

@DontStealMyNoEffortName

2 жыл бұрын

@@patclark2186 yes but I was saying in a joking way that aircraft are one of the biggest threats to a tank since the tank can't really do anything about it

@brianbuttacavoli5692

2 жыл бұрын

@@DontStealMyNoEffortName not unless they are escorted by spaa

T72s are no match for Baryactar drones. Tend to blow their tops.

Germany makes the best guns

@Kingfishertim24

2 жыл бұрын

I vote Belgium.

With all these upgrades,they never put a automatic missel loader,then you would need 3 man crew,instead of 4.

We wouldn’t want too many of them not on our side too fight if things went wrong

Especially when it has Apache helicopters above and behind them

Uranium powder is not highly toxic. It's radioactive component is so weak that no one during either Iraq war got more than a very small raioactive dose. The chemical effect on the kidney is much more significant, but during the 1st Iraq war, even those who inhaled a significant quantity of U dust suffered no kidney damage.

How long would does it take to actually build a Abrams Tank from the bottom to combat ready? I know Ukraine needs more weapons but I would not like to see the USA or any other country run low of Weapons to safe guard there own country, I do worry about that at times

@maxwellwharepapa9019

2 жыл бұрын

@Clay Roll Thank you my friend for replying. Max from New Zealand

@knand9936

Жыл бұрын

yeah..... so far 1/2 a year of war has only drawn down one of the US's weapon stockpiles... out of which I don't know how many exist... Also, the US wouldn't sell any of its new builds. They'll use Ukraine as a dumping ground for relatively old systems that would have been scraped in a few years...

It took us 6 weeks to retrain M60A1 crews to the new M1 Abrams, too late for Urkaine, better for Poland to give them their Soviet tanks and replace Polands with Abrams.

Yes give them what they need,these brave Ukrainian soldiers use weapons brilliantly for good results.

I believe a combination of Composite Armor, ERA, NERA, and a further sacrificial protectant can be helpful. I cannot divulge what I mean by "further sacrificial". We'll see.

King of war? Hardly. Artillery my friends. The real king 🤴.

@knand9936

Жыл бұрын

..... missiles now a these days.... guided too...

IF UKRAINE 🇺🇦 ARE REQUESTING TANKS YES !!! THEY' DON'T HAVE TO BE ABRAM' TANKS !

What is that at 1:48? Is that an original M1A1? A scaled down foreign sale version? Doesn't look like the American MBT

@Hellenkeller777

2 жыл бұрын

I think that is the new Griffen II. It is the new US Army light tank.

To me the King of Cool is still the A10 turning tanks into swiss cheese with those depleted uranium rounds. I'd rather not be the guy in the tank.

@tank7275

2 жыл бұрын

It’s gonna be real cool when it gets immediately shot down by a Su-27 or a SAM

@knand9936

Жыл бұрын

yeah, the A-10 would be a better thing to send them...

Give them all they want. The factory needs the work, we need the sales and the Russians need to learn to stay home.

Send Ukraine 500 of these: and mechanics to help keep them on the hunt for more than an hour

Thanks for not using the phrase MG irreverently.

Abrams tank is a heavy tank to be fighting in Ukraine in the winter months.

@knand9936

Жыл бұрын

yep... will get stuck in the mud just like the Russians....

@zipz8423

Жыл бұрын

They dont have real winters anymore - global warming.

The next tank integration needs to eliminate crew in the tank. It needs to be remotely driven, and commanded, with an autoloader. This removes need to crew protection, and extra munition protection. Armor plating can be solely based on survivability of tank not crew. Weight reduced, fuel increased, and sensors increased. Allowing tank crews to control multiple tanks, rotate out without returning to rear. Returning to rear is only needed for fuel, reload, and maintenance/repair.

@davidh.6930

Жыл бұрын

EWF will kill a remotely operated vehicle in no time, so you ll need AI to make up for connection loss ... you really want that?

@knand9936

Жыл бұрын

until someone figures how to scramble the remote control, hack it, or just create an atmospheric emp burst....

Doesn’t change the war scenario in the era of Arty and missiles. Tanks have limited role, more so from the Ukrainian side due lack of training.

@jeffreystarits2783

2 жыл бұрын

thermonuclear weapons is king , all else is Childs play-- checkmate

@MrJdsenior

Жыл бұрын

@@jeffreystarits2783 And appropriate actually. Anyone who thinks tanks have had no impact in Ukraine have NOT been watching. Sure, you can kill them, just like EVERY other weapon, but that doesn't alter the fact that there are still probably thousands of them still wreaking havoc in Ukraine. I have seen Ukrainian soldiers say they don't want to face them, ever. I also saw one American Javelin shooter give the range that a Javelin was good for, and say that it was a real coincidence that the range was what it is, because that plus 20 miles was as close as he ever wanted to be to one of the enemies tanks.

@jeffreystarits2783

Жыл бұрын

@@MrJdsenior i have no idea what your talking about

With all the advancements in anti-armor that makes tanks and all forms of heavy machines irelevant. I guess that also makes mechs and robots irelevant.

@Mystical922

2 жыл бұрын

Russian tanks are irrelevant. The Abrams has anti anti tank systems as well as superior construction to the T tanks

@swaghauler8334

2 жыл бұрын

So-called "mecha" (walking tanks) are a joke. However, an exoskeleton of roughly human-size carrying heavy weapons would be a useful thing. Imagine "powered armor" supporting advanced tanks with really powerful directed energy weapons or missiles. That would be a killer combo.

@tedmoss

2 жыл бұрын

@@Mystical922 They will be irrelevant when they are blasted out of existence.

@panzermkii7675

2 жыл бұрын

Nope, Tanks are a valid mobile firesupport platform that does a better job that thin skins vees and IFV's, just because a ATGM can kill'em doesn't mean they are out, a cheap lead bullet can kill a Seal, doesn't mean the Seal is outdated. Just way things are.

@jameschase3831

2 жыл бұрын

@@panzermkii7675 Yeah I agree. Also, how you use tanks is pretty important. You don't send them out on their own in front of your infantry, or you're liable to lose a lot of tanks. This has been known since WW1. It's why the tanks attacking Dunkirk were told to hold position and not push on ahead, even though they could have. They wanted to save their armor for the later battles to come, so they had to wait for the infantry to catch up before advancing to the coast. Russian doctrine on this during Ukraine was to send small, half manned units out basically alone with minimal support. This makes it easy to fire line of sight weapons at tanks. If you have an infantry unit alongside a tank, along with CAS and other integrated units, good luck sneaking up on a tank like that. It's possible, but not nearly as easy. Given the range of the Abrams, if any of the integrated forces spot you, you're gonna take fire from the tank you're trying to destroy, or CAS, or the infantry, or other systems.

I've heard your voice before in another channel called "WATUP" or something.

Супер шикарная техника!!!

@Zellster13

Жыл бұрын

Super cool tech!

Yeah but can you make it hypersonic and stealth

@gourmetbanana

2 жыл бұрын

and have a flame thrower coming out of the rear

the British tanks are king of the armor category as a whole system i think the leopard 2 wins but the m1 Abrams is a nice balance if it wasn't such a fuel Guslar

@Delgen1951

2 жыл бұрын

fuel is not a real issue as Turbines can use any liquid fuel even Vodka and mix them in the fuel tank, also the 500 gallon tank makes up for the fuel use of the turbine on range.

One magnetic pulse bomb... and we are back to hand to hand combat or basic fire fights!

With training, I think Ukrainian will use them well if provided.

I love it, US needs to have everything different that rest of the world. US tones are 9.071847e+5 grammes

@MrJdsenior

Жыл бұрын

GRAMS? Why didn't you express it by equivalent hydrogen atom weights? Oh wait (weight?), just add and subtract exponents...right. :-) But still, kilograms maybe.

and then tehre is the Leopard2 A7V with 69 tonnes XD(nice)

U.S BAD ASS TANK,TOP OF THE LINE,

New Abrams has been tested thoughouly.

@pedromiguelalmeida4446

2 жыл бұрын

and the Leo 2A7V was not. dear Lord...

That would be a M2 .50 cal not a 12.7mm.

@pedromiguelalmeida4446

2 жыл бұрын

the metric system confuse you americans or brits a lot: saying NATO .50 cal (as .50BMG - Browning Machine Gun), as in the m2 hmg, barret's of all sort, aias50 or ax50, tac50, steyr hs50, pgm hecate ii, dsr50, tor anti material rifles, is the same as saying NATO 12,7mm (or 12,7x99mm). boy... 🙄. Just like basically 5.56x42NATO and .223, 7.62x51NATO and .308 winchester (it was the original civilian cartridge the 7.62NATO was based upon, but today they're used mostly as synonims)

awesome video.

Give them the tanks!!

U.S. m1 abrams can hit its target doing 50mph on the money without stopping,,deadly,very deadly tank,

Dónde está el tanque con dos cañones que anunciaste?

Just because Ukraine is at war in no excuse to NOT send them Tanks.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1:09 T-64 picture and T-72 pictures are swapped!

Tanks are becoming obsolete because of drones and Javalin rockets

Give them Abrams and lots of them

five hundred Abrams sounds good to me

Send the tanks and lets get this war over!

Every tank has it's weak point(s).

I think the new Phanter is better 🤔

I say send them 700 along with movers and recovery systems.

It would be better to deliver the specs in inches, feet, yards, and miles per hour.

@MrJdsenior

Жыл бұрын

Depends on who's listening, and if the US had any damned sense it would have been fully metric LONG ago. I've been hearing that this is going to happen way over half of my 65 years there. It's mostly a tooling thing, I think, and now that is kind of a moot point, with computers controlling most of the production scale machining, etc. I'm pretty sure, at this point, I won't see it if I live to be 100, but it is an infinitely easier system to work within. There are no 12 or 36 or 5280, and many other divisors and multipliers to work with, just ten...add or subtract zeros. Easy peasy. That system makes VASTLY more sense. It would also have negated a Mars lander crashing, and near infinitely many other such conversion disasters/problems. It is a world class dumb system that should have been relegated to the garbage heap about four decades ago.

Tanks seem to be obsolete these days.

@knand9936

Жыл бұрын

Not completely yet.... they're stick a mobile, ground based hardpoint and blitz unit.... Until you get a proper replacement for that, some version of tanks will still be used....

Um what about St Javlin?

A tank the king of war? No friend that’s field artillery.

@Hellenkeller777

2 жыл бұрын

They both are. They have different rolls and need to be used together.

@MrJdsenior

Жыл бұрын

Depends. Usually missiles, etc soften the enemy first, with US tactics, and smash a LOT of tanks and enemy artillery, fired from planes and helis, then artillery enters the fray. Both tanks and artillery are beasts when they get there, but yeah, artillery seems to do the majority of splattering at that point. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on the receiving side, especially of NATO artillery, or tanks, or handheld weapons, for that matter, and damn sure not hell raining in from the air.

There are, as we now know, materials that are so much stronger than any type of steel, so, why use steel then, at all.

@Hellenkeller777

2 жыл бұрын

Beryllium is one of those elements. It is lighter than aluminum and stronger than steel. However, it is expensive to machine.

Vote not to supply Ukraine w/ 500 M1's.

And now do your research on the Pros and Cons of depleted uranium. This is the stuff of nightmares and there are excellent alternatives.

Get them the tanks

Yes I believe these should be provided to Ukraine

Javelin did pretty well agenst Russian armour.

Better fight with Drones and Missels or Stingers and Attellery !

God idea. Send 600 of them to the Ukraine

Hmm, is that Chinese steel we’re using? Just a thought.

Pretty sure the challenger has thicker armour

@tank7275

2 жыл бұрын

Only on the turret I believe, everywhere else it is worse

sent more TB2 DRONES WITH LOTS OF ITS AMMOS.