America's Main Battle Tank: M1 Abrams | Animated History

[@TheArmchairHistorian]

Thank you to Armored Warfare for sponsoring this video! Click on the link: arwar.co/armchair, register and download the game now and don’t forget to enter my personal promo code 3240WA158MFY5F to get a bonus starter pack and Chieftain Mk.6 IMPORTANT CORRECTIONS: - The M68 105mm Gun is rifled, not Smoothbore. This was a script error that wasn't corrected. -The M1A1 began receiving DU armor in either October or May 1988, not 1987. - The Leopard 2 was powered by a Twin Turbo V12, not a V6. - We incorrectly used the Chinese Flag instead of our Soviet Flag for the T-72 lecture slide. Unfortunately, we did get certain visuals incorrect on this video. KZbin does not allow us to update our video file, so please refer to this for corrections regarding the graphics: www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1dgt5nk/a_correction_of_various_aspects_of_the_armchair/ Really sorry for this, we will do our best to avoid mistakes like this in the future. Use code "UNCENSORED50" Sign up for Armchair History TV today! armchairhistory.tv/ Merchandise available at armchairhistory.tv/collections/all Android App: play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fourthwall.wla.armchairhistory IOS App: apps.apple.com/us/app/armchair-history-tv/id6471108801 Armchair Historian Video Game: store.steampowered.com/app/1679290/Fire__Maneuver/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/armchairhistorian Discord: discord.gg/thearmchairhistorian Twitter: twitter.com/ArmchairHist

[@Elwin123]

Yeah, thanks. ❤

[@PilotPRT]

hi! can you do US military aircraft evolution? pls pls pls

[@dritzzdarkwood4727]

Your link fires up "suspicious site detected". It probably needs some small algorithm clearing.

[@Cactusgamer303]

Can you please do another one of those "life of civilians in occupied whatever county" videos

[@Autobotmatt428]

You miss pronounced Sabot rounds.

[@chadmorral1326]

Former US Army Armor Crewman here. I have a correction. The M68 105mm gun is not a smoothbore gun, it is rifled.

[@TheTacoKing13]

Source?

[@ak9989]

Gunner Sabot Tank! UP!

[@chadmorral1326]

On the way

[@Fretti90]

@@TheTacoKing13 The M68 105mm cannon that was used for the M1 pre-production was a derivative of the british L7 105mm rifled gun. It had some differences but was also a rifled gun. Its the same gun as the M60 had and one of the reasons it was chosen was because of its large stocks of ammunition. The M1 got its smoothbore with the 120mm gun. This is really easy to find with a quick google.

[@TheTacoKing13]

@@Fretti90 im not reading that essay. Ill just take his word on it because he drove a basement on treeads

[@ysbrand1114]

Fun fact the battle of 73 easting wasn't supposed to happen. It was only a scouting party that engaged the Iraqi armour and not the main force.

[@DMS-pq8]

Lot of battles throughout history happened that way

[@Shinzon23]

Sure it wasn't supposed to happen but it sure as s*** did happen because the Iraqis didn't know how to run their tanks properly

[@chefzilla314]

@@Shinzon23 73 Easting was against the Tawakalna Republican Guard division and they most definitely knew how to operate them. They were just highly overmatched by the Abrams.

[@XMysticHerox]

@@Shinzon23 Literally couldn't pen the enemy tanks and were blind half the time due to the sand storm. While the US vehicles had thermals. They could use their tanks but it hardly mattered.

[@guntotingleftist8004]

Lang leve Nederland in glorie en eer!

[@malvinshu]

Pentagon: "We need more power" Engineers: "How about putting a modified airplane engine?"

[@mrcat5508]

Not that funny

[@nagayafamm1006]

​@@mrcat5508 nobody cares about your opinion😭😭😭

[@mrcat5508]

@@nagayafamm1006 you seem to

[@GuestKid511]

@@mrcat5508 who asked

[@donaldtrumplover2254]

@@mrcat5508 👎

[@ysbrand1114]

Correction the Abraham's version in ukraine isn't a M1A2 but an M1A1SA (it's also an export model)

[@unitedwestanddividedwefall3521]

A lot of the high end tech isn’t included from what I read, same with the German leopard 2 ,British challenger, and the couple LeClercs they received.

[@JL-tm3rc]

​@@unitedwestanddividedwefall3521 those upgrades would not make any significant difference in the battlefield. Has any of the abrams challenger or leopard made a vehicle kill in ukraine.

[@baronc252]

​@@JL-tm3rcthey likely have, but got knocked out by drones and minefields.

[@usmc5977]

it wouldn’t really matter because no matter how strong Abrams front turret and hull armor, drones can still attack the top turret armor and rear, Ukraine needs better crew or better tactics.

[@anthonycoon6955]

​@@JL-tm3rcchallenger 2 has longest tank kill in Ukraine now

[@ExtantPerson]

You know a tank is good when it becomes the default image that most people picture when thinking about modern tanks

[@BackyardDogPark9862]

Same with the AR15 rifle design, just too damn good. The military has been trying to replace it with something better for since the previous millennium, and I don't think even the new XM7 Spear will live up to the hype enough for Army to get rid of their M4s.

[@psychobeam99]

​@cutedogsgettingcuddles9862 Well lets be honest. As good as the AR design is, the military is also a bunch of cheap asses.

[@baronc252]

​@psychobeam99 yes and no. I remember when the SCAR 16 was being looked at to replace the M4. I owned one for a period and realized a sad truth. As "cool" as it looked. It really didn't offer much of any improvement. For the price, you could have bought 3 or 4 ARs. Military canned it and kept what we had. One thing they actually got right for a change.

[@psychobeam99]

@baronc252 Well, it didn't help they waited a decade and some change to make a non reciprocating version, but yes thats true. Personally, I think we could use a battle rifle cartridge again, but the 5.56 has served us just fine.

[@corrat4866]

@@BackyardDogPark9862XM7 is a rather good battle rifle, with good recoil control for vastly improved ballistics and armor penetration.

[@beigegaming9905]

4:25 I'm from Lima, Ohio; its Lima (Lie-muh) like the bean. But yes, our tank factory still goes strong TO THIS DAY. Still producing Abrams TO THIS DAY. For sure a pride of the town.

[@milosmilictrob2046]

Its refurbishing older tanks, not making new ones, US is not producing new tanks from the ground up, all those tanks you see are older tanks being brought to newer standard (M1A2 SEP and M1A2 SepV. 2 being brought to M1A2C standard).

[@Red-Magic]

Is this a part of Lima Locomotive Works? The same company that built the M4A1 Sherman in WW2?

[@trailmonster]

I graduated from Ohio Northern University in Ada, Ohio (lived in Lima Hall for a bit) and often went to Lima, Ohio on the weekends. I was like yep that pronunciation often gets wrong lol.

[@Matsen76]

@@milosmilictrob2046 Not anymore. M1A2 SEPv3 for Poland are newly build.

[@milosmilictrob2046]

@@Matsen76 nope, there is no evidence to support that claim, they are older refurbished tanks.

[@killrmillr]

I knew a guy who was a US Army tank mechanic in the 90s. He told me that he once saw an Abrams with damaged armor. Somebody came and debriefed him on it. He said they seemed concerned about what he might have seen. What I can remember is that he told me there was a "gummy" substance coming out in the damaged area. I have no reason to believe he was pulling my leg, but maybe he was.

[@TJ042]

Whatever the case, penetrated Abrams tanks are heavily uranium contaminated. Not sure about a gooey substance, but there’s always something one doesn’t know.

[@ADudOverTheFence1]

Perhaps a part of the inner liners or components from the composite armor got liquefied from tanking a massive amount of kinetic energy from getting hit.

[@BAGELMENSK]

Some kind of heavy non Newtonian fluid maybe?

[@shakybill3]

Ive always thought using that kind of material wpuld be amazing for armor​@@BAGELMENSK

[@sup-iu1wl]

I think it's part of the composite to stop stuff like HE shells

[@JosephTobin1]

The Turbine engine was not a politcal decsion at all. It was vastly superior in all feilds but fuel consumption. Which was aliviated by the second test trials in which showed the crysleer variant had the head and shoulders advantage. -sourced from The Chieftain

[@corrat4866]

And due to American logistical strength, the fuel consumption is a negligible tactical aspect.

[@JosephTobin1]

@@corrat4866 indeed. On Top of that it was due to GMs engineers False belief that thier Variant would be the superior model, and the Diesel Engine within that variants repair cost and logistical issue that made the GM variant harder to better for the second Trials Iirc.

[@thotpatrol9563]

Yessss corrrest this videos is kinda wrong

[@looinrims]

Shhh ‘muh turbine bad!’

[@user-uy1rg8td1v]

@@corrat4866 While I do agree American logistical strength makes the Abrams high fuel consumption less important, I wouldn't say it completely negates the tactical aspect. A May 2001 study by the Defense Science Board "More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden" noted that fuel makes up 70% of the cargo tonnage needed to position the US Army in battle. The study said that if M1A1 tanks were 50% more fuel efficient , the 1990 Persian Gulf War buildup could have been 20% faster and ground forces ready to fight one month sooner. They noted that fuel delivered by ocean tankers cost only around $1 a gallon at the port, but transporting it inland can drive the cost up to $50 a gallon. In Afghanistan, the cost of delivering a gallon of fuel ranged between $400-$800 a gallon.

[@frankieM_]

Like 2 main errors I saw were: the description of the loader having an M240 mounted around the hatch on a rail (which itself is correct), but the diagram shown pointed at the commander's M2 and the M68 105mm gun was rifled not smoothbore and 12:39 theres an 'O' missing in Power Unit

[@TheImperialSoviet]

"How advanced do you want your tank to be?" "Yes."

[@MalikenNL]

Then it gets taken out by a $500 drone

[@TheImperialSoviet]

@@MalikenNL Haven't seen that yet, but alright

[@dannyzero692]

@@MalikenNLI wouldn’t call a downgraded 1991 relic top tier equipment lol

[@OGsuburbanite]

American tanks aren't magic lol

[@TheImperialSoviet]

@@OGsuburbanite They aren't, but I'll be damned if they aren't stupidly advanced. They took on hordes of contemporary enemy tanks and literally all of the losses the M1A1 sustained were from friendly fire or deliberate destruction. Yeah, only WE can destroy our own tanks. Oh, and also, the M1A1's armor is so stupidly tough that even though we lost 7 tanks, we didn't even lose a single tanker crewman to enemy action. But yeah, definitely not magic, but shitloads of engineering, testing, and tanker training has let this all happen. Oh, and of course, the quality of the tank's design crews deserve credit as well.

[@jailbreaker1214]

6:58 Your animator used a Chinese flag instead of a Soviet one haha. T-72 is Soviet

[@larikauranen2159]

Also i never realised that the leo 2's i served had a v6 diesel instead of the mtu v12 diesel engine. Guess i counted wrong the ignition plugs on my tank

[@squidcraft3878]

Kinda right, it’s hard to tell, it could be Soviet style, but decently not china, I zoomed in, it looks different

[@jailbreaker1214]

@@squidcraft3878 You should probably google the Chinese flag

[@squidcraft3878]

@@jailbreaker1214 I do know what it looks like, and that’s not it, it’s missing the small stars, and it’s very blurry so it might be the hammer and sickle

[@JMK948]

I was just thinking the same thing.

[@TheMeepster72]

Couple things worth noting. 1. No Abrams outside of U.S. service has the depleted uranium armor inserts as It's illegal under congressional law to export classified armor packages. 2. Although SEP v4 was cancelled, the active protection system was retained as an ad on for v3 with U.S. abrams deployed to Poland being equipped with trophy APS.

[@lixobounce6588]

Since Sepv4 is cancelled, is the next upgrade will still be considered Sepv3 or an A3?

[@TheMeepster72]

@@lixobounce6588 I heard they're going back to the old ww2 era system. Gonna threw some Es in there.

[@lixobounce6588]

@@TheMeepster72 Es are only for experimental model like T26E1 though, production line units still uses As like the Shermans

[@kon8459]

@@lixobounce6588 Next upgrade is officially the M1E3 program so probably the A3.

[@xtron1234]

So thankful you all portrayed the XM1 program fairly accurately (within the time given to it in the video). The common misconception is that the GM proposal was just better and the decision was entirely political doing with the turbine engine. But as you said it was very much Chrysler's willingness to take criticisms and rework issues in their proposal, something GM was very sluggish on which concerned the Army greatly, that lead to their selection. The Chrysler proposal just *was* better by the end of testing and the Army recognized that they were the contractor they wanted to work with long-term.

[@adrianlopez6809]

My grandfather was a Department of Defense Officer at White Sands Missile Range when the XM-1 was being tested there. He mentioned a story where a remote control XM-1 lost its connection to the people controlling it and ran around the desert uncontrolled. Couldn't be stopped until it ran out of gas.

[@dead8514]

I am a simple man i see armchair upload I click

[@Toasty2012]

same

[@trel9388]

and like and comment

[@stephengamber6233]

Especially if it's about a Tank. Or Jet. Or Machine Gun. Or World War II. Or . . .

[@DMS-pq8]

The M-60 that was considered obsolete by the US army in the 70s is still being used by several nations today

[@Firearmclown]

Well, not all variants, just most. You are overall correct, but some upgrade packages are still useful, just not to the U.S. I think maybe the Turkish M60 with the 120mm is pretty good-ish, for an okay MBT.

[@burnedbacon3989]

It's M60 not M-60, M-60 is a sherman variant with 60mm HVMS gun

[@imperator9343]

Yeah cause tanks are super expensive and ultimately an armored vehicle is an armored vehicle in many cases. Especially if you aren't expecting to come up against countermeasures like Javalins or more advanced tanks from whatever your primary security concerns are. And also, Russia has been losing them in colossal numbers during their invasion. But they have literally tens of thousands of tanks mothballed that they can keep reactivating, which is way more efficient than trying to build a whole new invasion force of armored units using more modern designs (though obviously not in terms of manpower)

[@Philtopy]

If the highest power declares something as "obsolete" it is only obsolete for *their* standarts. Its totally adequate for the needs of medium powers.

[@JohanKlein]

T-55: "Hold my beer, son!"

[@mikitheslav9711]

the 105mm gun the abrams was fitted with was rifled, not smoothbore

[@older12000]

I believe the engines displayed at 6:45 are noted in different units where the Abrams is with the power but leopard with (an incorrect) engine type and displacement

[@niume7468]

Yup I was thinking hold on, no way my audi has the same engine as an leopard tank 😂. Leopard II actually had a V12

[@SeoulMan]

"This is Raven's territory. Snakes don't belong in Alaska. I will not let you pass. Send him a message!"

[@Isometrix116]

The Abhrams is a Ship of Theseus at this point. When you've changed every component of the original multiple times, is it really the same vehicle?

[@burnedbacon3989]

Finally somebody on KZbin realises that Chrysler model is just better so it got selected instead of saying the Chrysler model got selected as a bailout by the government!!!

[@Tannutuga]

Wait till they hear I ate the Abrams

[@Kyle-zj6lj]

I think some of the ingredients are bad for you

[@sasin2715]

@@Kyle-zj6lj 1984

[@Tannutuga]

@@Kyle-zj6lj yeah literally 1984

[@lokikinch]

Bros bulking on the Uranium armour

[@unwanted_zombie]

Again??

[@ak9989]

I was in armor for 23 years. Loved it! Forge the Thunderbolt

[@huntclanhunt9697]

What tanks did you drive?

[@invictusangelica]

Beside the mistake of calling the 105mm a smoothbore, an addition should also be made about the SEPv4: its technologies are also being directly back-integrated into the SEPv3 in the form of Field Modification Kits so basically the SEPv4 still lives on but is just called the v3.

[@huntclanhunt9697]

The M68 105mm cannon is rifled, not smoothbore.

[@manuelacosta9463]

It's a true workhorse of a tank, fast and hard punching.

[@LonelySidTheSloth]

I would disagree simply too expensive and complex , needs lot of maintenance, Its more like a race horse instead of a workhorse

[@soulknife20]

​@John-rr9su Yup. That's why it's been around for 40 years. Just too much work.

[@chloeholmes4641]

​@@LonelySidTheSloth same russian talking points had been talking about the f-35 meanwhile it's the most widely produced aircraft of the 21st century!

[@Shadow27Titan]

@@soulknife20lmfao

[@denisgorjunov]

It didn't prove to be that good in Ukraine.

[@jfdavis668]

The 105 was not a smoothbore. It was rifled.

[@Swagmaster07]

An Armored Warfare sponsorship, pretty good call actually. I like the game myself, its not that grindy especially on the early tiers.

[@ThePyro3825]

@11:20 "Nicknamed the silver bullet" Lol, that word has a VERY different meaning to medics and corpsmen.

[@soulknife20]

Yeah it does...

[@worldoftancraft]

Yes, Ameriquan tankers really need a FLIR, because they can't even notice that DU rod they are holding in their hands is made of Uranium, not of silver.

[@TomEllis-mv4mn]

Tank naming be like Bob we need a new tank name Hmm how about we put a a in it Bob... YOUR A GENIUS

[@TJ042]

US Army nomenclature: XM = experimental model M = model (so, accepted into service) E = proposed modification. Becomes A upon acceptance. For example, the M1A1 was called M1E1 until acceptance. A = accepted modification. And then the number, and a nickname.

[@An-American]

The XM-1 from General Motors didn’t look like that. It had a different turret, hull and gun

[@jared6882]

I thought the M1A2 was developed in the early 90s? And by 1986 the most advanced M1 was the M1A1-IP or HA with the 120mm

[@vogel630]

havent even watched the video yet and i already know its going to be very well produced and the animations are going to be great

[@toututu2993]

Huge respect with such quality contents like no other. Hats off to you and your awesome artists/animators for creating such a marvel youtube videos

[@Nailed_it23]

105mm smoothbore ????????? the M68 105mm is a rifled gun its based on the L7. the 120mm that was put into Abrams later was a Smoothbore edit: you guys seem to have got a lot of dates wrong M1A2 did not come around to the 1990s

[@Naruto_uzumaki120]

Approved for production in 1990, the M1A2 represents the U.S. Army's technological improvement of the basic M1A1 design

[@jughead8988]

My dad was a tanker for 21 of his 22½ year military career. He started on the M48 in Vietnam and lived all the way through the M60 line of tanks. I the 70's he was involved in testing the M1A1 years before anyone knew what a M1 was. After he retired he went back as a civil servant teaching tank gunnery at Ft. Knox on computer simulators. Luckily for me the CO over the facility was dads old XO when her retired and also his best friend. When school was out i went to work with Dad and got to play all day in the simulators. At i time that all of my friends where playing Mrs.Pac-man and space invaders, or of they where really luck playing on a atri 2600, i was playing tank shooter on a multi-million dollar computer bigger then some people's house! I logged thousands of hours in those things.

[@darkwar25]

Just signed up as a 19k Abrams crewman can’t wait to see this thing in real life

[@rc59191]

My biggest regret was becoming an Airman before joining the Army as a 19K. Was gonna serve 3 years in each branch before my plans got wrecked.

[@soulknife20]

I'm not even a tank guy. I was a Navy Corpsman with Marine infantry. M1A2s are way bigger than you think.

[@MrHeavy466]

Enjoy the suck my guy.

[@interstellarmanufacturingc8093]

haha have fun bro I love my job as a 19k when im actually tanking but working on that damn thing is a pain in the ass.

[@darkwar25]

@@soulknife20 only tanks I’ve seen Irl are Shermans. I have a feeling that Abrams is going to be a tad bit bigger.

[@lixiangdong9821]

Why is the T-72A labelled under the Chinese Flag. Shouldn’t it be the USSR? 6:56

[@pan2aja]

That is how the US propagandist paid him to animate

[@CrispyPratt]

​@@pan2ajait's called a graphical error and it has been noted as a mistake in the description you wet wipe

[@pan2aja]

@@CrispyPratt "noted"..all hail freedom of speech

[@The_FatGeneral]

​@@pan2ajaWat

[@pan2aja]

@@The_FatGeneral wat ?

[@noimage1254]

I love my "medicinal" M1A2 Abrams

[@biafra13743]

Biafra is coming

[@martinlatour9311]

This channel is an absolute gem. Your video quality and production is top notch and narrator always does a great job. Cheers

[@chaosfire321]

I still can't parse what makes an Abrams upgrade worth an A1/A2/A3 vs a SEPv1/v2/v3.

[@TJ042]

A’s seem to be big deal upgrades, whereas SEP is more gradual modification. That’s my guess. The M1A2 SEPV4 was canceled in favor of the M1A3.

[@bluntcabbage6042]

As TJ042 said, it's a matter of how substantial the upgrade was. The A1 standard introduced an entirely new gun, 120mm M256, instead of the older 105mm M68. This was a substantial change. A2 standard introduced a massively overhauled fire control system including better optics and a thermal imager for the commander, which is itself another substantial enhancement (among other upgrades). System Enhancement Packages are usually more minor upgrades to the likes of fire control, optics, and armor. They aren't big overhauls like the A-standards but still notable enough to attach a new designation.

[@misterpanzo]

Where did you get that the Leopard 2 uses a V6 2.9L engine? Is a tank, not a Ford Ranger truck!

[@ninwiz45]

Awesome, well-informed video. Brilliant.

[@CrispyPratt]

Idk man there was quite a lot of mistakes in the info and graphics

[@ninwiz45]

@@CrispyPratt and they’ve been corrected.

[@acem82]

My fellow Marine told me their Abrams topped out at an actual 60 mph on a paved road. Take of that what you will.

[@RichelieuUnlimited]

Same thing with the Leopards, my guess is that lower speeds are recommended for engine longevity and track integrity. Going too fast could also cause track pads to come loose.

[@JANKEZpl]

Could you please cover the interwar Czechoslovakia one day? It's military industry, fortifications and the turbo-armament and mobilisation of multi-ethnic population is a fascinating topic.

[@bagobones9891]

Got any good sources on that

[@JANKEZpl]

@ wikipedia, archivised military documents, some of the Sudeten forts have survived the war and now serve as museums

[@godfrey2440]

6:16 aint that an M2 browning 12.7mm? and the 105mm isn't smoothbore

[@abitofapickle6255]

It's funny how the layout of the M1 is almost identical to the Sherman. Gunner sights on top of the turret? Check. Stabilizer? Check. Airplane engine? (Sort of) Check. Rubber track with supports? Check

[@tommy-er6hh]

What goes around , comes around again.

[@Hydra_2-6]

If it aint broke, don’t fix it

[@corrat4866]

If you want the best, learn from the best.

[@looinrims]

This is a stupid comment made by internet ‘tank nerds/military history buffs’ like 95% of forced world war 2 comparisons Did you know the M1 is almost identical to the T34? Featuring a sloped turret, a gun forward, and a 4 man crew! See how stupid this is?

[@BobThomas123]

​@@looinrimsit's true tho. The Abrams can be compared to the M60 too

[@adamsears1403]

As Tank Crewman here who served from 99-08 The M1 has went through a lot of changes in the 40 years of production and use. It's very impressive that any tank design can stay in service and the biggest threat on the battlefield the entire time. It is a great platform that with a well trained crew and battle doctrine, it will be on the battlefield for atleast the next decade. I don't think it will last as long as the BUFF (B52 Bomber expected to last 90 years of service), But it will be up there.

[@ebonaparte3853]

Why do we know the armor composition if it’s a closely guarded secret?

[@lukematson353]

proabably thickness levels and how the process is done?

[@corrat4866]

We don't know specifics.

[@MaxTheAmerican]

Warthunder

[@TJ042]

We don’t. There’s a general idea what the layout looks like, but the exact materials are Anglo-American state secrets.

[@worldoftancraft]

Because it's a funny secret. There's no DU armour, only DU ceramics. And we don't know if it was actually installed on line-unit tanks

[@marooner-martin]

Holy hell, 2.7k views in 14 minutes. I’ve loved seeing this channel grow throughout the years (pretty sure we’re the same age)

[@CarolinaAnglingCo]

God I love the Abrams.

[@worldoftancraft]

Top attacking AT means also luv Uhbruh-ms

[@renegadeleader1]

The American Heritage Museum in Marlboro Massachusetts has an M1 Abrams on display on loan from the USMC. It was released to the museum after it was mission killed in Iraq from rolling over an IED that also killed tank's commander with a shrapnel wound. The USMC deemed it too damaged to repair despite being 98% intact except for the front right side suspension, distorted armor and track wheels.

[@unwanted_zombie]

Yes yes yes- he said a 105 was smooth bore. Calm down. We all make mistakes. Think about how much Mr Historian has taught us. It's up to us to kindly teach him the difference. Love the vid.

[@duceposting1831]

Most of the video is incorrect information outside of general history

[@COMMANDandConquer199]

At 6:44 you have the Leopard 2 running on a 2.9L v6. I don't think an engine that small could even move it. 🤣 It actually uses a twin turbo v12 diesel engine.

[@8.bit_gun340]

Unpopular opinion: I like bearded Griffin better than shaved Griffin.

[@Swagmaster07]

This thing will soon be 40 years old, if it isn't already. Pretty impressive how progress HAS SLOWED on creating new tanks. Unless the new technologies aren't worth over creating a new tank, just upgrades.

[@grefire1947]

There will come a time when new tank designs will be needed. Since with each upgrade the tanks get heavier, any weight saving measures from replacing analogs with digital and such can only do so much. At some point tanks cannot be upgraded further cause it will be too heavy for civilian infrastructure, a new tank will have to be designed from the groundup to be lighter while still having all current tech.

[@Canadian_sheep]

Do a video like this but for the Leopard 2?

[@BobbyB1928]

The XM1 had its armor upgraded in 1978 after a British evaluation that year was dissappointed in the only 350mm of kinetic protection during testing. The MBT-80 prototype for comparison offered 430mm which at least according to the British still was not enough for the 125mm threat of the mid 1980s. According to the CIA the kinetic protection of the final product offered 400mm kinetic protection which only ended being enough to defeat BM-15 at any range which wasn't exported untill the mid 1980s but could only defeat BM-22 out to 2 kilometers or more and 750mm vs chemical attack which was enough to defeat the Soviet Spandrel. The kvartz turret of the T-80B and 72A would have offered simmilar protection as it was only designed to withstand 105mm NATO tungsten rounds (specifically M-735) which were simulated using BM-15.

[@DarkStalker09]

The XM-1 GM does not look like that.

[@TeurastajaNexus]

It looked like XM-803 in the video.

[@DarkStalker09]

@@TeurastajaNexus yes it does

[@FireMegaDragon]

Leo 2 has a v12, not a v6. And how come you pit the abramhs engine power instead of what it is?

[@iiwidowla99lambo65]

WHAT IS A KILOMETER!!??? M1 ABRAMS THE TANK THAT WON THE COLD WAR AND ANNIHILATED THE IRAQI ARMOR! !!

[@dannyzero692]

The Bradley killed more armor in the Gulf War, but yes Abram is a lot cooler inside our head 😢

[@iiwidowla99lambo65]

@@dannyzero692 wait what oh yeah I did hear that Bradleys fired missles that could obliterate thr soviet made Iraqi tanks but I never knew it killed more in thr gulf war I thought it was the A10

[@worldoftancraft]

@@dannyzero692 which proves that Uh-bruh-ms is less capable than Bradley. And that it is overhyped.

[@GeN56YoS]

fun fact: Iraq now has m1a1 as their main battletank

[@iiwidowla99lambo65]

@@GeN56YoS oh yeah after the insurgent war

[@RichelieuUnlimited]

As things stand today, the Abrams‘ brother, the Leopard 2 has the advantage in terms of protection (Swedish trials), mobility (*substantially lower fuel consumption, higher power-to-weight ratio, more powerful engine at 1600hp (A8 only)) and firepower (Rh120 L/55A1).

[@bluntcabbage6042]

Comparing protection is pointless because even the best publicly available figures are going to be flawed in numerous ways. Fuel consumption is only notably higher for the turbine at idle. At likely combat speeds the fuel consumption is similar. The benefit of the turbine remains its compact size and ease of replacement which one of the main reasons it was picked at all. Firepower is largely moot because both vehicles are more than capable of engaging and destroying all potential threats at all potential engagement distances. Comparing the latest Leopard to the latest Abrams is pointless because both tanks are going to perfectly fulfill the mission profiles that they are expected to have. Comparing them side-by-side then becomes a pointless exercise of dick measuring. The actual, quantifiable differences in capability are overall tiny. Therefore, given that the US needs to produce, ship, and field infinitely more MBTs, it's logical that they don't waste insane amounts of funding on minor improvements and instead wait until more major breakthroughs are made to warrant the cost of refit/production.

[@RichelieuUnlimited]

@@bluntcabbage6042 During the Swedish trials the Leopard 2 had a fuel consumption of 7.2l/km, the M1 Abrams was at 14.8l/km, more than twice the consumption of the Leopard. The armor figures shown for their protection levels are also quite indicative of how well the composite is placed in the Leopards armor scheme. That’s not something that can be overcome easily. Firepower is hardly moot, considering both would have trouble penetrating the most modern Russian tank‘s armor at combat ranges based on simulations.

[@michaellynes3540]

Skip to 2:14

[@iquillizer33]

the GM model of the XM1 was modeled incorrectly when you showed it, look up General Motors XM1 1976 and you’ll get a good idea of how it looked

[@zix2421]

Tanks are so cool!

[@najidkaawdad5514]

Please make a WW1 or WW2 from Canadas perspective! I had family serve in both world wars for the Canadians, with my 2x great grand father fighting at Vimy Ridge and my great grand father at Juno Beach, and I would love to learn more about my country and its impact in the war.

[@strayadoesgames]

7:00 did I just see a T-72A designated as Chinese? all mighty Type 69 feels sad now. The M1A2 is far from being the best tank in the world. But it is the best tank for American armored doctrine. There are many tanks that could be considered superior to the Abrams such as the Challenger III, Osorio (a very sad story) or the Leopard 2a7. Many people argue that Russian tanks are useless however they are being judged by western standards when western and soviet armored doctrine is entirely different so of course if judged by western doctrine it would be seen as inferior. So for the American army the Abrams is the best tank, but it it far from the best in the world. In my opinion the current best tank is the Japanese Type 10 and the French Leclerc. But that's simply based off the vehicles themselves which only have an edge over other western style tanks due to their bussel rack autoloaders.

[@soulknife20]

Soviet armored doctrine is just "Throw tanks that way."

[@WONGKHAIHONGMoe]

@@soulknife20 More like send small groups to probe enemy defenses, repeat x100, send 1 full battalion of troops into the weakest spot. Airstrikes and artillery for 3 days straight beforehand.

[@huntercornwell7233]

The insurgents should have known that hitting the tank in the rear obviously deals more damage than the front or sides. If you use the M136 pickup gadget, you can hit the rear and switch to your RPG and hit the rear again Source: Seasoned BF4 player

[@shiyian]

6:58 the t-72 shown has a chinese flag accompanying it but the t-72 has never been in service with the PLA

[@leeionicatlas6461]

Huuuuge misconception at 4:00 it wasn't a political decision that led to the selection of the Turbine, the Turbine was just the objectively better choice. Red Wrench Media addressed this in a recent video.

[@duckman5891]

I like cheese 🧀 👍. Do you like cheese 🧀 👍 ❓

[@German-Empire-mapping300]

Ya

[@LeichterPanzer]

i dont like cheese but cheese on things like pizza cheese is good

[@cattledog901]

Cheese is an S tier food

[@strayadoesgames]

cheese is peak dairy

[@German-Empire-mapping300]

@@strayadoesgames fax

[@elgenvalcin6885]

William Desobry had his fingers on the Abrams? He was nearly killed defending Bastogne, a place that then Lt. Col Abrams helped to relieve a week later back in 1944. What a strange coincidence!

[@M4A1BestGirl]

Pretty sure the government asked me to sign an NDA on some of their newer prototypes. They're still highly classified and if I leak them to anyone for any reason, it's straight to Gitmo for me.

[@michaelwilliams7292]

Same when I saw in the armor plating

[@huntclanhunt9697]

It's probably already on Warthunder.

[@2kt2000]

C'mon...I'll visit and bring cookies.

[@FishyFishaz]

I play war thunder, the docs are safe with me

[@thundermonkey5640]

As a former tanker on the M1A2 sep, It's great to see such videos. 1-8 cav

[@zack65769]

6:24 thats litrealy a m2 browning 50cal/12.7mm not m240 on the blueprint ans i think the coaxial is also 50cal

[@JustABalrog]

he does mention that it is mounted around the loader's hatch which is correct, but you are also right; he forgot to mention the .50 cal. also, the coaxial is a M240 so he was correct about that though.

[@matthewjones39]

The coaxial is an M240.

[@seanteszler3911]

can we get a similar video on soviet tank development as well please :)

[@Husarrinio]

Soviets decided to stop existing

[@PongoXBongo]

Hopefully, a newer version will beef up the turret protection and finally mitigate the weakness to top-down "can opener" munitions. That's been a known issue for decades.

[@B1_Bis]

Renault FT 17 is still better. Change my mind.

[@WolfeSaber]

What's that, a light car?

[@Meowystery]

@@WolfeSaber it's the ww1 french tank with a turret.

[@WolfeSaber]

@@Meowystery Like I said, a light car

[@WONGKHAIHONGMoe]

@@WolfeSaber Ah, yes. A light car with tracks and a turret.

[@ChristopherGriffin-ee2ol]

The turbine engine can use many fuel types. Even Jet Fuel of the JP-8 type can be used to power the turbine engine, the composite layer armor also used another metal, depleted Uranium, among the many types of ammo, Sub-Caliber rounds, like the Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot/A.P.F.S.D.S, is used, and also, the M1 Abrams is still used to this VERY day

[@insanehellboy6212]

Also think he forgot to mention the armour wasn't an American invention it was British and we shared the technology. Thanks for the video as a Brit the Abrams is my second favourite modern MBT but ngl Challenger is my favourite not just cause it's my nations tank but that it was one of the most protected one but can't wait for the new Chally 3

[@Somki3]

Nice video. Now you will also have to make one of the Leopard 2 or even the other side of the Warsaw Pact, the T-80 (or maybe the T-72)

[@CMDRFandragon]

Friendly fire in the gulf.....British Armored units flying giant Union Jacks off their tanks....

[@destroyer-cq2lm]

Fun fact, the Lima tank plant in Ohio is not pronounced like the Lima in Peru. It is pronounced lie-ma. I live in the area and that's how all the people from there pronounce it.

[@worldoftancraft]

Such a wonderful language. Reminds me of Chinese. There you also can't use the power of alphabet to decipher how the word sounds.

[@michaeld.uchiha9084]

You forgot they also tested the Leopard 2 prototypes against the XM1 and Abrams. There is also a Abrams with a german MTU Diesel engine and they also planned since that to Outfit the Abrams with the German Rheinmetall 120mm canon. It was only a political desission to use the Gas Turbine and Not the overall better MTU Diesel engine. Abrams till to this day needs extreme maintanance because the filters of the Gas Turbine are fast depleted. Also the engine stats of the Leopard 2 are all wrong. Leopard 1 had a 10 zylinder and the Leopard 2 has a 12 zylinder. Also the range and power stats of the Abrams and Leopard 2 are totaly wrong.

[@bluntcabbage6042]

It's a debunked myth that the turbine was selected because of politics. The AGT-1500 was a superior engine to the diesel alternative. The diesel only performed better in initial rounds of testing. In the months between test phases, the AGT-1500 was continually worked on and refined whereas GM did not modify their diesel engine. The end result in later phases of testing was that the newly refined AGT-1500 matched or surpassed GM's alternative in all notable respects while being a simpler and more reliable engine overall.

[@zanderterblanche]

Fantastic Video! Keep up the great work

[@Pie-sr9zo]

Wow

[@GUSTJUSTFUST]

Wow

[@generaltom6850]

@@GUSTJUSTFUST Wow

[@Alam3dQ]

Though the Abrams has many flaws and issues It's still quite a powerful machine, definitely worth improving on for today's battlefield threats.

[@PWB06]

T14 next?

[@dannyzero692]

He covered that already, but not much information is available about that parade tank.

[@PWB06]

@@dannyzero692 you got a link?

[@DerpyFox]

Does not exist, so no.

[@AaronJones711]

This video has multiple inaccuracies right off the bat

[@2dhistory197]

despite the abrams being strong but it's not undistructble but in modern conflicts I think abrams is not feared anymore due to an invention called "D-R-O-N-E"

[@amhuman5138]

I'd fear a bloody tank in any conflict, drones aren't an end all be all, but that's besides the point. A tank can still SERIOUSLY screw you up even if you have drones. Only the foolhardy cease to fear a weapon once a countermeasure has been developed.

[@thatoneperson134]

Anti drone technology?

[@Yorkington]

Ukraine is showing anyone listening and looking that tanks need APS to deal with drones. AbramsX is our next generation MBT that will have an answer to this new phase of modern warfare.

[@abas656thegodemperor9]

The abrams X is a testbed, its not an actual tank.​@@Yorkington

[@krazownik3139]

You know what's scarier? Tanks with drones. The biggest issue of tanks has always been a limited visibility from inside, which increased chances of infantry to destroy it in the close range. Now, imagine a tank with additional pair of eyes looking from above.

[@appelbottemjeans]

The M1 Abrams is and will always be my favorite tank!

[@warmox1215]

For the algorithm!

[@brianshooter_6723]

17:32 ~ Don't forget Egypt

[@softairsan]

7:06 Best sentence.

[@Insert.name.here747]

They really said: freedom Rahhhahhhhh🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🪖🪖🪖🪖🔥🔥🔥

[@Napoleon_Bonaparte1804]

Yeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaawwwwwww🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲💪💪💪💪💪🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅

[@goldenfiberwheat238]

14:23 wait that’s an actual thing? I thought battlefield made that up

[@benverboonen1108]

Imagine thinking Russia can even compete

[@adamsert-wj8jn]

i mean they had to pull this tank out of frontline after massive losses, even ukr forces complained about it

[@grimsurgent]

​@@adamsert-wj8jnthey complained because they had no HE shells for it since US doesn't use them

[@rsookchand919]

Always love when they spotlight vehicles, can’t wait to see the history of combat aircraft for other nations

[@Lancetdrone]

Lancet's food