Busting Tank Myths: M1 Abrams

I've made videos talking about and busting tank myths in the past, but there wasn't an overall theme. I've recently decided to do more topical myth videos. For this one, we're going to be focusing on the American M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank. Much like other MBTs such as the Leopard 2 and T-90, the M1 is the center of a lot of exaggerations and misinformation. This misinformation is both positive and negative, so we'll be taking a look at Abrams myths from both sides.
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Sources:
NSIAD-92-94 Operation Desert Storm: Early Performance Assessment of Bradley and Abrams
Abrams - A History of the American Main Battle Tank by R.P. Hunnicutt
Hearings on Military Posture and H.R. 6495 Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1981
TM 9-2350-255-20-2-1 Tank, Combat, Full Tracked: 105-mm Gun, M1 (M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank Technical Manual)
Army, Volume 25
Intern Equivalency at the Office of the Program Manager, XM1 Tank Systems
Tanks: 100 years of evolution by Richard Ogorkiewicz
Songs used (in order from first to last):
Subnautica - Into the Unknown
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Sound mods:
Epic Thunder (Pre-release)
Gunner HEAT PC Crew Voices Mod (Personal, go play the game: gunnerheatpc.com/ )
Sponsor: apexgamingpcs.com/pages/spook...
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: / spookston
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: See my Patreon page.
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#warthunder​​​​​​​​​​​​ #tanks​​​​​​​​​​​​ #tankhistory

[@MercShame]

In Iraq in 09, we disabled the governor on some of our 1114 Humvees. We raced them on the airfield and got up to 103 mph. I was honestly scared because the vehicle would shake so bad that it felt like it would disintegrate. You couldnt hear each other even if you were yelling through the inter com system.

[@deadeyecpt.7765]

Fast and Furios: Freedom Drift

[@MercShame]

@@deadeyecpt.7765 once, I was filling in a different platoon and the TC had me race to get back to base after a mission. When I got up to 70mph, I topped off and he told me to speed up to win. That... was scary since if I had even touched the soft sand off the road we would have flipped.

[@Vanadium]

@@MercShame that sounds like just like the old Unimogs we pushed hard in the 80s. They get so loud you could not hear anything else. The most scary thing was turning this with speed into a corner because its so freaking high you expect it will just flip.

[@filmcameras4evr45]

You can take the petrol head out of their country, but you can't take the petrol head out of them As for incredibly loud and terrifying at speed.. drive an old series land-rover. They're terrifyingly fun

[@twentylush]

@@MercShame You should pick up rallycross you'd probably do pretty good right off the bat 😆

[@Calbeck]

The Abrams, without its speed governor, can do about 60mph. On flat, paved road. For about one hour, before the turbine burns out, which is a total engine loss. There was no reason to do this, however, because doing 40mph cross-country is about as fast as you WANT to go in a vehicle that does not exactly stop on a dime and which has no seat belts or significant internal padding. I have seen on various occasions what happens when an Abrams going flat-out WITHOUT the speed governor encounters a situation where it is made to stop very quickly. The results include gunners smashing their faces on their sights, loaders on "air watch" being ejected from their hatch, and at least one TC whose skull was indented sufficiently by collision with the open hatch cover to give him brain damage. Speed kills. Source: me, an Abrams tanker.

[@mikehenthorn1778]

Internal padding, lol It has sharp corners for your pleasure.

[@user-njyzcip]

Speed doesn't kill. Speed without matching protection does 🙃

[@Deathbomb9]

Doesnt stop on a dime? Stops in less distance than any car on the road past or present. And that's at 42-45mph. Theres plenty of video showing an Abrams stopping in one tank length from 30 and more in one track length or less from 45. Either you or your driver were baby peddling like you do in a car.

[@PimpofSolSquadron]

@@Deathbomb9 Still not on a dime if we want to be pedantic. Before you say anything else about it, by all means, drive it and slam on the brakes when you do it; tell us all how it goes without seatbelts and the interior corners being sharpened for your facial pleasure :)

[@Deathbomb9]

@@PimpofSolSquadron if we are gonna talk about actually being in a tank then let's really talk about it. Most the time your TC will have the situational awareness to know when the potential need to stop in a big hurry is. I've never seen anyone not be ready to brace. If you arent, you're an idiot or too trusting. Saying the word brace loudly or with mild panic is usually a sign. As I driver I've been in some pretty rough terrain where I dropped the nose of my tank over a foot drop. Emergency braking isnt usually something you want to do. That drop was enough for the tank to slam the LFP against shale. It wasnt fun and the only injuries was a bruised elbow for my gunner and my ego. I'm not saying serious injuries cant happen, but usually people are aware enough to mitigate them and if you're planning on doing a full stop everyone on board should be aware of the plan. If it's TRUE emergency braking then clearly there was something more threatening than the risk to the crew from the braking. Something like taking a dive into deep water, off a shear cliff, or a combat danger that would threaten the life of the crew and operation of the vehicle. I was simply saying that you can absolutely stop that tank in a hurry and it stops in much less distance than a car at comparable speeds. Also, as a driver you need to be watching your route and know it. You need to be the expert in that area. And any TC that doesnt trust his driver to talk to him and give an honest opinion shouldn't be in that seat. Drivers training should be something that is constantly being done in every movement and ever chance that is available. As a driver I've never had a TC that told me how to drive. They gave tips and tricks, but never told me what to do unless I was unfamiliar with how to traverse something and then it was a learning experience and not micromanagement. A driver also needs to know what that tank can do and how to make it do things that most people have never seen it do.

[@F6FHellcat5]

Just from anecdote, my grandpa was a trucker and drove past training grounds and stuff occasionally. He talked about M1's passing him while they were driving alongside the highway.

[@Shinzon23]

"Driving"? No no no no no... not driving..."rumbling past" would be more accurate

[@prestontheinconsistentyout1573]

@@Shinzon23 Rubber (based) tracks and good suspension

[@herrfingerknacks4970]

i heard that about my Father and the german leos. You could turn the 2 big fans from the leo engine off so you could have something around 400hp more and he got told too that the leos could go up to 120 km/h [74mph] so they were racing with the Trucks on the Autobahn🙃

[@paoloviti6156]

@@herrfingerknacks4970 yes you could turn off the big fans that did absorbed power but I think 400 hp is a bit too much but I heard the Leopard 2 in Germany and I find the fans really noisy. The problem is that the MTU are very hot engines so the driver had to be very careful when switching off the fans...

[@Shinzon23]

@@prestontheinconsistentyout1573 I've been around Abrams when they're driving past on highways to get to test ranges and stuff...they still Rumble past

[@Irish37]

Another myth about the M1 is that the huge air-intake requirements of the gas-turbine engine meant that the crew would have to clean the air-intake filters so often that it would be inconvenient or prohibitive in combat, especially in a desert environment. This proved untrue, as in Gulf War I in 1991, my crew only had a chance to clean the air filters once in five days, and the engine performed like a dream anyway.

[@nickvanachthoven7252]

but doing maintenance once in 5 days is way to much for the desk jockeys who have never seen a tank but get to make decicions.

[@CrayonEater255]

@@nickvanachthoven7252 no it isn’t

[@kokofan50]

Sand is a much bigger problem for helicopters and planes than tanks. Their engines don’t get air filters.

[@hyperiongm330]

@@kokofan50 Tell that to the Egyptians and Israelis with their helicopter sand filters.

[@stevenholmes8854]

My crew learned the hard way, put a high-pressure water hose to those air intakes and you can kill the turbine.

[@garrettwood201]

Even if speeds in excess of 45 MPH are myths, a 60+ ton tank hauling that much ass is one of the most terrifying prospects I can think of as a human being on the same ground at that thing.

[@chalion8399]

I've seen 2 ton rolls of paper knock over trucks when they were only rolling at @ 5mph, so something 30 times that weight moving that fast is just, intense.

[@lemons1559]

@@chalion8399 do you work at a paper/newspaper factory and how often do such accidents happen?

[@jpmrwiggles121]

@@lemons1559 probly two ton paper rolls for construction use. you put it on the floor when renovating to avoid dmg mainly used in prefab housing when putting on walls.

[@chalion8399]

Worked at a papermill for 18 years, before it shut down. Made cash register rolls, by the hundreds. What I described happened twice in that time frame. Luckily, no one got hurt, but it was a royal pain to get the trucks righted.

[@nickkozak4763]

@@chalion8399 there are trains

[@tomppeli.]

"Tanks don't have seatbelts" To oppose this, I present you: Not a tank, but an armoured personnel carrier, a Swedish refit of the MT-LB! I do believe it was a modernised command variant, but seatbelts along with variable brake intensity was certainly nice, quality-of-life thing.

[@jammygamer8961]

If the tank was to be penetrated wouldn't the seatbelts slow your escape?

[@blind8305]

@@jammygamer8961 If someone was worried about not getting out in time they could probably choose to not wear the seatbelts. Also, as it was a command variant, the seatbelts would greatly increase the capability of the crew and commanders inside to operate, read orders and maps all while on the move at rough terrain, and it certainly wouldn't slow you down to make a considerable difference as the seatbelts would have a quick release and it can be done at the same time you grab your service weapon.

[@Someone-wj1lf]

@@jammygamer8961 you can just remove them in a combat situation, which represents 0.01% of a tanker’s time in their vehicle

[@arcticwolfpup1924]

APC not a tank

[@jammygamer8961]

@@arcticwolfpup1924 if it has tracks and a gun its a tank to me

[@blockwood316]

The M1's speed is governed to preserve the front pair of torsion bars, the tracks, sprockets, and the transmission. Ever seen what happens when 68 tons comes down at high speed on the front torsion bars? I have. It ain't pretty.

[@waldek7772]

doesn't a removed governor also increase overheating?

[@paoloviti6156]

@@waldek7772 correct but it is also generally very hard on the transmission and the sprockets...

[@samm1561]

the main reason that modern track vehicles like that Leo and the M1 are governed is because of track overheating the track blocks have rubber bushings inside of them that the track pins pass through and can generate a great deal of friction if the vehicle moves more than about 40 miles an hour for very long it could actually set its own tracks on fire

[@samm1561]

perhaps with 8 to12 sets of needle bearings per track block by the way YOU are the one gets to lube and change all of them

[@xt6wagon]

Also the crew. The governed speed is a time tested limit where the tank getting airborne over a rise should not cause permanent injury. Training and maintaining skilled crew is also expensive, and thus the Army has some interest in not needing to replace ones with severe back injuries.

[@reecewestmoreland6137]

I think crew survivability is an under appreciated part of tank design for people on the internet , thanks to games like War Thunder and World of tanks where crew never permanently die. In reality a vehicle is easily replaced a trained crew is harder to replace. It's why I like tanks like Abrams and Challenger 2, they where built with that in mind. Offroad speed is limited anyway as the driver has limited visibility and needs they need to be able to stop encase of impassable or hazardous terrain so even if it could do 60mph it could only practically on a straight road and if that;s what they wanted they'd have gone for a wheeled vehicle.

[@JohanssenJr]

The speed of a tank, any AFV really, is ultimately determined by how well the driver can see.

[@Justowner]

I keep seeing destroyed husks in out of Ukraine that looked un-survivable. I'm thinking that lack of auto-loader and hard ammo separation from the crew is a seriously under-considered benefit.

[@sleepy1066]

@@Justowner soviet tanks having their turret blown out has become somewhat of a "iconic" thing for them, tbh i dont feel like the tank being smaller and having a autoloader (with all the ammo right beneath the turret) so 1 less crew member needed is a good enough benefit, the only real benefit imo would be that if it does get hit the crew would hopefully have a quick death

[@Justowner]

@@sleepy1066 So, the Abrams has suffered battlefield losses. None have been "Destroyed" meaning none have been write offs. No Abrams (at least in US service that I can find) has ever been "Huskified" like these tanks. But some have been mission killed in the field under US service, but very few American tankers have died as a result of being mission killed. The only crewman that regular has casualties is the commander, because they routinely stick their heads out of the turret. The idea that maybe its more merciful that they get a quick death is sort of silly, when even when sort of catastrophic damage happened in the gulf war: nobody died. I cannot find records of US crew being KIA even when their ammo gets blown. Many have been injured, but no deaths from these events.

[@jackhawthorn4799]

Challenger is better than Abrams/my tank is better than your tank 🇬🇧💪

[@exo068]

Please make more of this type of video. By the way can you also make a video on the BMPT prototypes? They would be really cool tanks as event vehicles.

[@martinnorth4689]

The object 781 looks really good.

[@Anime-117]

Guess who's back, Back again, *Abrams' back* _Tell your friends_

[@josephdedrick9337]

Bang...all your tank friends are dead.

[@SlavGod47]

So yes, I can confirm we don't use the hull ammo stowage anymore. I did 3 years on the thing and I only OPENED it once, when my gunner just wanted to show it to me Also, who tf was removing their speed governors? The mechanics certainly would've murdered us, and the Abrams already feels like the Space Shuttle Challenger at only 30 mph on your average road. Though I have gotten it up to about 60-70 mph, but this was only in a simulator...after we got mobility killed via an engine hit while we were climbing a hill, so we just sped down the hill at max speed 😂

[@ms-1236]

The problem with the hull ammo stowage is just how damn hard it is to get rounds in and out of it. Additionally, you don't pop those doors once a year, they start to seal shut almost permanently.

[@casematecardinal]

How are the mechanics going to murder you? Shoot you? Fat chance. Unless they got a javelin lying around.

[@gjones8817]

@@casematecardinal 5 words: “that’s a crew level task”. I’d rather just get shot

[@MarcinP2]

I always assumed the hull storage is in case you survive the main ammo cooking off and need to defend yourself.

[@casematecardinal]

@@MarcinP2 probably but that scenario probably wasn't worth the possible risk as losing your main ammo rack is still a mission kill anyway

[@andrewmcglaughlin8412]

Having been a tanker and been on the M1A2 Abrams SEP V2. This is all mostly correct, (I don't Know about crews messing with the governor though) as for its speed limit. These beasts will absolutely go past 45 mph given the chance. Only issue i can see with going faster is something in the engine, transmission, sprocket, or track breaking. I heard a story from someone in the Fort Benning tank museum that the Abrams was tested on how fast it could actually go, but the track blew apart around 90 mph ( I personally don't know if that's true), but as I said....the M1 series are absolute beasts of machines and if they aren't chained down, can and will run down their prey with savage intent.

[@ragnarokstravius2074]

90mph is a 144kph for everyone else. Hopefully the guys at Fort Benning bought some custom reinforced Track to get that speed limit higher.

[@andrewmcglaughlin8412]

@@ragnarokstravius2074 Tanks without support are sitting ducks, so theres no need for it to outrun military wheeled vehicles. SO i doubt it.....sadly

[@ragnarokstravius2074]

@@andrewmcglaughlin8412 yeah, but this wasn't in a battlefield, was it?

[@calebdean2440]

My Dad claimed that during the desert storm era they were getting Abrams over 75+ mph on test tracks, but the tracks were the weak link and came apart. I always wondered if that was just a lost in translation and was actually 75+ KMH

[@andrewmcglaughlin8412]

@@ragnarokstravius2074 correct, but i think the point was proven to the testers lmao

[@IansMentalOmega]

The M1 can fly, fires cruise missiles from its main gun, is made of a metal more powerful than Stalinium, and is the first tank deployed on the surface of the sun in the war against the Solarites. The only reason aliens have not invaded is due to the power of the M1, which can fire through time and space and destroy planets by revving its engines. It is the first tank to time travel and is equipped with FTL travel capabilities.

[@PimpofSolSquadron]

Yknow, in Red Alert 1 it COULD teleport with some help from the Chrono Sphere, so you arent too far off

[@IansMentalOmega]

@@PimpofSolSquadron RA1 Takes place in the 50s, so this only proves that the M1 could dimension hop AS WELL as time travel.

[@jimmydesouza4375]

You forgot the optics which let the commander see all possible timelines and so choose the best course of action in all situations.

[@thanatosstorm]

In before we start talking about the Giga Drill, "ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER!"

[@IansMentalOmega]

@@thanatosstorm ah, I see you are a man of culture as well.

[@codlogic7060]

Stats aside I honestly just like the overall look of the Abrams compared to most modern tanks.

[@grikkajunior]

Turret isn’t aligned with the hull :)

[@casematecardinal]

@@grikkajunior the turret also isn't symmetrical on the turret cheeks

[@terrain7879]

@@grikkajunior yet we still love it

[@tonny8881]

@@casematecardinal still the best looking MBT, with the leo2 being a close second

[@philmybutup4759]

@@grikkajunior same w the tiger 2

[@m1a1abrams3]

theres a myth that the latest variant is called the m1a2c. it was only ever called sepv3 even in the osut manual.

[@maverickjhett]

to my knowledge the new SepV4 is the official M1A2C not the SepV3 like some people called it

[@frankbradley4487]

Just wait until you read about the XM1A3/M1A3 lol!

[@m1a1abrams3]

who said the manufacturer painted it? was the sepv2 called the m1a2b? im gonna need sources

[@camerong.5989]

Everything I can find says the m1a2 sepv3 is interchangeable with m1a2c

[@PimpofSolSquadron]

Please, I beg of the US Army, please just call it the M1A2C, instead of the M1A2 SEP V4 +TUSK, (just for extra abbreviation gore). I dont think congress will raise the torches and pitchforks for calling it a new model(?)

[@pyr0tekn1ks86]

T-90: *has a good reputation* Some Ukrainian farmer with a tractor: "I don't need sleep, I need *tonks* "

[@someweirdo1736]

I also want one but i dont have a tractor

[@itspersiangulfmoron.repeat2242]

To be honest those were T-80s but yes, Russians are sometimes to lazy to ramify their equipments foibles.

[@thejackal5099]

T-72B3s, not T-90s

[@exo068]

It’s a free sample like the ones you can get at the supermarket.

[@grikkajunior]

What happened?

[@michaelhowell2326]

The Abrams myth that kills me the most? That she can only do 45ish MPH. I have personally had one up to 65, and she still had a lot left.

[@masterhacker7065]

Considering half of the information on the new tanks like the M1a2s and 2a7s is 100% classified then its gonna have a lot of lies.

[@brisho2684]

I remember getting up to 60mph going down the old tank trails at benning going through armor school, good times 😂

[@jedispartancoolman]

Proof or it didn't happen. claims need proof other than an anecdote

[@camerong.5989]

@@masterhacker7065 it is the same engine as the m1 which we have information about

[@jedispartancoolman]

@Geefwee Bodoe okay so prove it. Claims still need proof.

[@jester3633]

I'd like to see a video like this about the challenger tanks, really enjoyed this vid 🤘

[@Pointclearius]

I second this

[@kaidon39]

@@cookiecraze1310 ?

[@cookiecraze1310]

@@kaidon39 I just realised I put this on the wrong comment.

[@kaidon39]

@@cookiecraze1310 Lol that's okay 😅

[@Deathbomb9]

And what are the myths about it? The challenger 2 is survivable but that's all it excelled at. Gun sucks, slower rounds, no commanders individual sight or viewer...shall I continue?

[@eukalyptusbonbon2983]

I don't know if you've done the Leo 2's yet, but i think those would be a good pick for a following episode.

[@gmodrules123456789]

Bro I'm telling you, one shot from an M1A2 will turn the enemy crew to soup and pull them out the exit hole; literally no trace of the crew will be left. How do the physics work? Uhhhh. I don't know, but its cool isn't it?

[@michaelhowell2326]

I heard that one a lot. When I did my Stryker training the big myth about those was that if it shoots from 90° it would fall over.

[@ordersquamata930]

Direct hit from a Sabot will fuck you up, that thing travels faster than the speed of sound and is made of Depleted Uranium. HEAT will both pierce you and burn you. A hit to an enemy tanks ammo will often set it off. It’s essentially stuffing the crew into a metal oven that borderline evaporated them

[@andrewmcglaughlin8412]

That stems from T-72 tanks during Desert Storm being found running, with the hatches closed, but having been hit with APFSDS-T rounds and supposedly bits of cloth and red mist were covering the ground on the side wher the round exited. SUPPOSEDLY, the round would create a suction effect and pull anything not nailed down out the exit hole

[@Vanadium]

@@andrewmcglaughlin8412 so we are talking about alien 4 ?

[@andrewmcglaughlin8412]

@@Vanadium Yes, same concept from what Ive heard

[@MoonMoon-uy2ph]

I would say mine only reached 50mph because of a unseen problem with fuel starvation and the computer trying to correct it by flooding the engine with fuel Which really hurt the acceleration

[@JMAN-pg4tg]

As someone who has driven an M1 a decent amount overseas, I have gotten one over 40 mph without combat override on a downslope and actually jumped the entire thing off the ground over a small sand dune. The Abrams is the most fun army vehicle I’ve ever driven

[@stevenholmes8854]

As a tanker I used to watch the recruiting videos and cringe. Jumps can hurt. One time we got it to slide on ice at 35 mph.

[@saltysteel3996]

In operation Thunder Run into Baghdad, an M1 was set on fire from an RPG hit into the fuel tank. It had to be abandoned. They destroyed the secret stuff inside with thermite grenades before leaving it behind. The Air Force bombed the tank the next day to finish it off, and the hull and turret still survived after all of that punishment. The armor is classified to this day and the in-game War Thunder models are inaccurate. But from what I do know (served 5 years in the Marines, and a coworker helped test and develop the M1 Abrams) it is encased in steel on the outside and inside, with ceramic honeycomb layers to absorb chemical warheads such as HEAT, then about 8 inches of depleted uranium which is 2.5 times denser than steel. There is an anti-spalling coating on the inside. The whole entire upper hull plate is a slab of depleted uranium and not a weak spot, as it wrongly is in the game around the drivers hatch. Any tank can be destroyed, including the Abrams which have been knocked out (killed) either by being disabled or destroyed from huge powerful IEDs. But no Abrams has ever been destroyed by an enemy tank. It is indisputably the best tank in the world. They are very hard to kill. They can track and hit long range moving targets while the Abrams is also moving. They are NBC capable with automatic fire suppression systems. They have the blow out ammo racks. The best armor, especially with the TUSK system, and other active protection systems. And very good mobility.

[@aorusxtremem1_sam183]

However they have bad suspension system and no automatic track tensioner system like the challenger 2 (torsion bars snapped) at high speed when hitting bad bumps on the way!

[@ST-zm3lm]

The M1’s crew survivability is damned impressive

[@stevenholmes8854]

I was pleased that in the early 90s I was on the test crew of the M1A2. We got a few deep classes on the tank design, most over our head, but one thing I learned was all the wiring has redundant backup. Pretty interesting.

[@evtinker1814]

I think there may be some variation in top speed depending on the model of M1. When I was in Germany in 1985 our unit, the 2nd ACR, transitioned from M60A3s to M1IPs. The M1IPs were the last of the 105mm armed M1s but had some of the features added for the M1A1s. I can personally state I observed almost getting it to 60 mph indicated on the speedometer (however accurate that really was) while driving back from Grafenwöhr to Bindlach on the autobahn. The overspeed indicator would flash, I would hit the reset, then it would go again a few moments later. The driver of the M1 I was following said his indicated just over 60 mph. We were the first two tanks in the column and the rest could not keep up. Some of the drivers had trouble controlling them at that speed. We didn’t blow any turbines up and these M1s were not modified, they were just brand new. I did find one roadwheel tire overheated and started to separate from the rim after that road march. We did drive slower after that, but 45 plus mph on the highway was pretty normal. We would frequently pass German trucks on long hills as they slowed down, and we didn’t. Cross country on level dry ground it could do maybe 40-45 mph. They are pretty easy to get airborne on bumps at that speed but the suspension is so soft you can’t even feel it. I have been told that the M1A1s had lowered the final drive ratio to help with the added weight which cut the top speed a bit. One of the Cav troops held drag races when they were at Hohenfels. There was a lot of variation among individual tanks, some were just slow for some reason. The older well-worn M1s we had at Ft Hood were slugs in comparison.

[@ScrogginHausen]

Suggestions for top-tier Soviet tank tree: - Random chance to run out of gas - Random chance to break down - Random chance the crew will abandon the tank - Due to there being much less quantity than advertised, T-80/T-90 players may randomly spawn as T-72s - If a player from Ukraine spawns in the match, there's a random chance your tank/helicopter/jet will explode because man-portable AT/AA.

[@yevgeniygorbachev5152]

- If you overstay the "RETURN TO THE BATTLEFIELD" timer, you get towed off by a tractor

[@ScrogginHausen]

@@yevgeniygorbachev5152 Speaking of which, we need a Gypsy tank tree.

[@ScrogginHausen]

- The battle map is disabled. - Radio comms from other players are disabled, while your comms are broadcast to everyone.

[@lemons1559]

30% chance to be towed away by a tractor.

[@JobeStroud]

The tracks tend to melt when you disable the governor. The friction is crazy at high speed. Also I have taken a M1A2 to 54 MPH. I always heard the 60 MPH since I was a private. Never got it up to there though.

[@stevenholmes8854]

Not to mention roadwheels. I have seen a roadwheel catch fire, probably because of rubber friction or poor bearing lubrication.

[@JobeStroud]

@@stevenholmes8854 Ohh yeah. Saw that happen any basically anything with a roadwheel. Usually Abrams though. Now Engine fires. I have seen many Bradleys just go poof. Engine fire! Reason Ambrams is considering the A2 is already a overloaded suspension. Can't imagine the other crap they added on over the years.

[@tread140]

OK so how exaclty do you disable the governor? After three years of hanging around gunners and TCs that were in the first Desert Storm, I've never heard a first person account of how its done or what is involved. Tell us! I was only on M1A1s, and only got to sit in an A2 during OSUT. (1996-1999)

[@JobeStroud]

@@tread140 I expect nothing,,, EVER.

[@tread140]

@@JobeStroud Huh?

[@shadowblade145]

Just found your channel, currently binging all of your videos. I love that you display your sources to illustrate your points - seems basic but goes a long way for making it more interesting and building credibility. Awesome

[@WynnofThule]

3:08 **If** theres something we're not being told about the governor, I'd **imagine** the governor being on in most cases but with a Wartime Emergency Power option type thing.

[@Plumbump]

There's a lever to disable it in the drivers compartment. We were always told not to mess with it, unless in an emergency.

[@connordalton4553]

T-72 needs a healthy dose of myth busting.

[@adrianstachowski9422]

We can see Russians busting it's myths themselfs lol

[@mamarussellthepie3995]

@Adrian Stachowski and it's on video! Xd

[@hmshood9212]

‘member when the Abrams lacked a dedicated HE-FRAG shell for the longest time instead splitting up those capabilities into canister and HE-OR for infantry shredding and anti fortification roles respectively? You know until the programmable AMP round showed up and you could have it do whatever you needed it to.

[@kaitan4160]

Yeajh i remember that. Because the Main Gun is an outdated Product by Rheimetall and every upgraded Version the US Army doesnt want because the upgraded one cant fire that funny uranium tipped Shell. Just in case they need it again.

[@Harleqwin]

I served on the M-1. 105mm main gun, and only 2 round types we had were APFSDS and HEAT.

[@USS-SNAKE-ISLAND]

People are STILL peddling the story that Abrams lacks HE-FRAG rounds. So, YES I 'member! (It's like the AMP round is a military secret.)

[@YukarisGearReviews]

M908 HE-OR-T was available in 2003, though.

[@ultrasupertrunk90]

@@YukarisGearReviews ya but its wasnt a true HE round, just an MPAT round with a steel tip

[@jacobr.5762]

i love the videos keep up the good work you’ve also helped me getting better at the game because i didn’t know different shells or amour and etc thanks

[@Tigerheart01]

People also forget some major factors that makes the M1s such a great tank. For starters American training is top notch, and many of our tank crews are now battle hardened veterans who were trained by battle hardened veterans since we were in an active war for nearly 20 years in two different countries. Second, although the M1 on paper doesn't have the strongest armor, or the most powerful gun, or the highest top speed... it has just enough in all three to generally outclass those tanks that are superior in one of those categories. Finally, and this is a HUGE one, logistics. The United States, unlike other countries with advanced main battle tanks, can AFFORD to have loads of these in service, maintain them, and keep them fueled.

[@hobblesofkarth3943]

And get them where they need to go. it may be a Thicc old girl at 70+ tons, and huge, even by MBT standards, but the US can make those problems go away with massive amounts of money, manpower, and rip its. They will get where they need to go.

[@Tigerheart01]

@@hobblesofkarth3943 Absolutely right. Forgot to give credit to the herculean efforts our logistcs folks can pull off when it comes to simply deploying our fighting forces and their equipment. We have the air and naval transportation capacity that outclasses any other in the world.

[@CrashB111]

@@Tigerheart01 It's also important to remember the crew survivability of the Abrams. Even if she takes a hit and gets disabled, the crew is very unlikely to die as a result. You can always repair or replace the Abrams, can't do that with experienced crew cause they take about 18-20 years to get back from the factory.

[@newone-gd9sk]

The propaganda got you good huh...

[@johnpaulbeerer1145]

M1 Abrams is still the greatest fighting tank in the entire world

[@honkhonk8009]

It was the greatest cus it was first imo. The Leopard looks like its more the updated version, since the leopard and abrams were both made from practically the same engineers, but germany leans more towrads tanks for some reason.

[@botondkalocsai5322]

The problem with the ammo in the hull is despite it has a blowout panel, it is still encased in the hull so any projectile that pierces the bulkhead of the storage will cause a lethal cook off. Any penetrating projectile that does not penetrate first the (or in the direction of the) blowout panel, but hits the hull storage, will surely pierce the bulkheads, so the crew will definetely burn in the cookoff. More penetrating projectiles that come first through the hull blowout panel will not be stopped by the ammo and hence will overpenetrate, also piercing the bulkheads. It only useful against less penetrating projectiles that can be stopped by the ammo and comes from the direction of the blowout panel. So storing the ammo in the hull is way more dangerous than storing in the turret bustle, becasue the bustle storage, apart from the powered door, is completely disconnected from the fighting compartment, hence only the powered door piercing hits will cause lethal cook off.

[@cavalryscout9519]

If I remember correctly, the M1's speedometer topped out at 60 MPH, which is probably where those claims of high speeds are coming from. The thing is that military speedometers are generally not even slightly accurate over about 45 MPH, and tracked vehicle speedometers are typically less accurate than wheels. When I was a tanker, we ran ungoverned M1A1s (the original version, prior to DU armor) up to the limits of their speedometers, but our speeds were never tested by anything reliable, and my company's tanks caught fire a lot (like 3-4 engine fires every 2 week field problem). The older and wiser me who is actually a mechanic is inclined to think that our speedometers weren't reading correctly, and we were probably burning up our engines for an extra 5 MPH.

[@majorspittle1]

In my unit the M1s top speeds would vary up to about 7mph. Everyone said it was variance with the governors, but I would bet it was mostly how worn the drive sprocket was. Anyway, If you were on a tank that was a dog you could only do around 43mph, but if you got a fast one you were close to 50mph. And yes, we would race the tanks against each other because we were men and that's what men do. Oh, and never had an engine fire in an M1. You guys were probably putting gasoline in them and hitting the smoke generator.

[@cavalryscout9519]

​@@majorspittle1 Nah, they just liked to burn. We only used the smoke generators with diesel, but mostly ran on JP-4 or Jet B. Not saying we didn't do anything stupid, just not that. We were told to tape over the switch and only remove it when we were using diesel. When I was in the drive sprockets wouldn't have been worn yet. Most of our tanks were just a few months old at the time. Someone high above me ordered the governors disabled on all the tanks in the battalion, and we kept switching between JP-4 (50/50 kerosine/AVGAS blend) and Jet B (30/70 blend) to see which gave better performance (answer: neither, because it's a tank). Older and wiser me who is a mechanic suspects that the fires were caused by the combination of disabling governors (allowing unburned fuel to get into the exhaust), and using fuels with low flash points. Diesel or JP-8 would have just blown out puffs of smoke, but anything with AVGAS in it would fireball. They weren't exactly dangerous fires, but the whole battalion had them all the time. I actually wonder if someone in the chain of command quietly got fired over that and the news just never got to the privates, because to us it just seemed like the fires were normal.

[@petersmythe6462]

Other things might be: "Modern APFSDS will shatter and not penetrate the upper front plate." and "Outdated APFSDS can get through the turret ring if they ricochet or shatter on the upper front plate." and "The depleted Uranium used for Ammunition and armor by the Abrams constituents nuclear and/or radiological weapons, and the main hazard from exposure to uranium dust is radiological." and "The Uranium in a round ignites upon impact with an effect similar to incendiary or even thermobaric round, incinerating everything inside the target." and "Uranium used in the Abrams could be used to make a nuclear weapon and/or could be used in domestic power plants."

[@kirgan1000]

The problem is that the depleded Uranium in itself is quite "safe" but can have a smale amount of residues like Plutonium, that is a health hazardous.

[@MarcinP2]

Something I was unaware of until playing GHPC: ammunition fire can still destroy the tank if you happen to angle the turret in such a way that shot penetrates it on the side but passes trough ammunition door leaving a hole. Frankly that might be enemy's best bet (other than shooting from above maybe).

[@Deebosbikerepo]

Love your videos spookston, short, to the point and very entertaining

[@wacojones8062]

Tank top speeds are classified while still in service. I got a M113 Gas engine up to 55 miles per hour. Track life and safety concerns are why the governors are used. I have seen M1 doing close to that at Ft. Knox when they snuck up on us running in M113 Diesels and passed us up like we were standing still. That was while they were working up the training units to be prepared for the first line unit students. I was a track commander and training NCO reserve side in a training division. We taught Cav scouts 19D while our sister BN taught 19K. Good overall presentation.

[@frankbradley4487]

Did the Bradley really knock out more tanks in Desert Storm than the Abrams? I have seen multiple sources claiming this.

[@drrocketman7794]

Also there is a confirmed kill with a Shillelagh missile fired out of a Sheridan but I have never seen anything about it

[@saltyfloridaman7163]

In mobility kills yes (killing the treads so it can't move)

[@redkaladin6864]

The M60A3's outperformed the M1's due to better thermals and crews that had more training on the frames.

[@tahaemad5809]

but the loss of bradly was more you can say abrams is more efficient

[@markmclaughlin2690]

@@redkaladin6864 the TTS ON THE a3 was a superior optic i have crewed both m60a3 up to m1a1

[@martinsilva2190]

C1 Ariete tank myths. A lot of people dont know much about the italian mbt and this creates a lot of myths and speculation about it and it would be cool if you could help to clear that. Thanks for the awesome videos btw.

[@onebigfatguy]

Powered by marinara sauce and fires bags of Olive Garden at it's enemies who after realizing they have been given Olive Garden proceed to die from disappointment.

[@tterminatormc4705]

I think the reason the Abram’s is so good is because of how aware a U.S. tank commander is about the battlefield he is given so much info from his tank his supporting infantry and his allied aircraft that it’s to the point where he knows more then anything. Second U.S Abram’s crews are trained to utter machine like quality I met a loader once and he was ripped and lifted a full cooler to the point he made it look empty and claimed to be able to load a gun 12 rounds per minute on average ( if that’s true idk ) . Third the U.S Abram is damn near impossible to not be scared of because Abram’s will protect its crew to its own detriment so they can just hop into a fresh one and go back into a fight the next day a new tank flys in as if it was never taken out of the fight leading to rapid tank redeployment.

[@Jackelmandingo]

The reason for the governor was the tracks. Go to fast and they would start to slap and/or throw one right off. And no tanker wants to be stuck with just one track.

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

As Russia is proving with its total fail logistics, having a diesel is pretty nice when you have to sit around in endurance, because feeding a standard military sized fleet of turbines hurts everyone when you're stretching it. The term "whispering death" becomes "engine not running, out of gas" real quick. Consider how much longer the start-up procedure is for turbines too. You kick over the diesel and move as soon as you get oil pressure in an emergency. Even pre-heated a turbine guzzles fuel and takes a minute on the spin up. Then there is the particle issue of turbine blades and their life spans. Abrams is still liable to clown on Russian spam, given competent disciplined crews and non export models. It has the mystical things Russian crews wish they had instead of riding a bomb with no gun depression.

[@404Dannyboy]

I agree that fuel consumption is the main weakness of the Abrams.

[@foxymetroid]

@@404Dannyboy The upside, though, is that it's not picky. Gasoline will completely brick a diesel engine and vice-versa. The Abrams engine, on the other hand, will accept just about any liquid fuel. Gasoline, diesel, kerosene, etc., the Abrams will work.

[@honkhonk8009]

That was a criticism that was brought up by Germany during some consultancy period I think. The army said it was fine however, since the army said that if logistics broke down to the point they couldnt even get fuel down to the tanks, they wouldnt be using tanks in the first place cus their strategy or whatever. Eitherway though, its pretty much plug and play. No doubt the army could prolly just swap in a diesel quickly if they ever had fuel issues.

[@LothricPaladin]

The myth I hate hearing the most is that the Abrams isn't actually a good MBT in comparison to others. Like.. what?!

[@andrewmcglaughlin8412]

It honestly depends n the crew in it and the training they have as well was METT-TC

[@zacharieelfali3401]

I remember people saying the T-90 would stomp M1s. Well, it might be the case; but the T-90 would have ran out of fuel before entering the M1's range.

[@Christiankrehl]

@@andrewmcglaughlin8412 that applies to anything at all, if a skilled person uses said item its more likely to be more efficient and work better even if its obsolete...

[@KuK137]

It's not. It's overweight garbage (74 tons in last version, that's creeping on Maus territory) with crap engine, range, no autoloader, bad armour scheme (the fact they need to leave half of the ammo home even with extra armour on speaks volumes), imperial parts making tools and infrastructure of all sane, metric countries useless with it, really, if USA didn't throw gigatons of money to paper over all the problems right into the toilet it would be known as the worst modern tank. Throw half of that money at Armata or Leopard and the end result will make Abrams look like laughable junk...

[@andrewmcglaughlin8412]

@@Christiankrehl EXACTLY

[@jaxrammus9165]

spookston these videos are amazing! thank you

[@stevewalsh1935]

I know several guys who were Abrams crewmen, and two of them have told me first hand that they personally have been in tanks where the governor was disabled and that they could and did in fact hit 60 on smooth ground, and one even told me that his was able to do 70 in a short sprint, but they didn't push them that hard for long, due to component stress, and the possibility of throwing a track or damaging the transmission. The fastest they usually went was 45-50

[@spudmanwp]

I was a 19K in '88 and can confirm that an ungoverned M1 (not M1A1) can hit 60+ on a flat run.

[@Leeroy002]

There are are actually two governors on the M1 series tanks' engines. One physical (like a restrictor plate) and one electronically controlled governor. Only one of which can be disabled. The other ensures it will NEVER again see its recorded top speeds. In development testing, the M1 >HULL< was able to reach speeds of ~100MPH >WITHOUT< a turret mounted. (turret weighs 23.5 tons) >WITH< a turret the fastest recorded speed in ideal testing conditions on hardtack was ~72MPH... however those speeds were NOT sustainable. The tanks would trow tracks (even on hard surfaces) and the the ATG-1500 multi fuel gas turbine engine would be damaged due to turbine engine over-speed.

[@manueldiz6754]

Your videos are awesome brother

[@ImNtDead]

We were cruising through Kuwait doing about 50-55 mph heading out to do some target practice when some M1's rolled up catching up to our Hmmvee's before slowly out pacing us. With plenty of flat open ground and no obstacles they were big noisy balls of dust with gun barrels sticking out; but they quickly slowed down once we reached some hills and we past them. We all kind of figured they were ungoverned and had the accelerator maxed out probably pushing their machines to the limits to show off when they saw a small convoy of Hmmvee's heading in the same direction.

[@jaredhaynes5658]

Although I rarely agree with spook, I can’t deny he makes a lot of good points I wish were discussed more, like the Abrams’ “invincibility” and the Chrysler contract. I think it would be really beneficial if you continue this series with MBTs such as Leopard 2, Challenger 2, etc.

[@philmybutup4759]

Rarely? Do you think he’s making false claims or you just disagree with his opinions?

[@jaredhaynes5658]

@@philmybutup4759 By rarely I was referring to his opinions in his war thunder content, not on his videos where he’s analyzing historical vehicles.

[@flyingstump2938]

Disproving the myth that the Bob Senple was a bad tank. 0 combat losses, deterred Japan from attacking, highly advanced engineering.

[@Bustin_cider00]

My buddy Noah from high school is in the Army and works on the Abrams, according to him, you can switch the governor off but it essentially shakes apart the engine after a while

[@PaladinSheppard]

I love that the picture you used for the American M1 at 0:12 was of one in Australian service And for those that are wondering how I know that when no clear markings are visible? Well the lighting for one, Aussie lighting contitions are pretty unique, two the paint colour on the tanks is not the normal Desert Tan the US uses, and three LOOK AT ALL THE BLOODY EUKALIPTUS TREES! :P

[@smeghead765]

Totally true fact no. 703: If you disable the governor, the "jet" engine can make the Abrams fly.

[@owo1744]

I'd love if you covered the myths surrounding the Brazilian tank that competed with the XM1. They say it was better than the XM1, yet I have VERY high doubts about that since it was made by a truck company from a third world country.

[@baizen1]

It is not that entirely implausible though, because as a foreign company they had quite the freedom to choose the best components from other nations and also deal with a lot less red tape in their component choice. But it was also being a truck company from brazil what doomed it, since you cannot expect to much extended service or reputation from them

[@h.cedric8157]

@@baizen1 that's where the problem is, it's components are sourced from faraway manufacturers.

[@cheyannei5983]

Hay, this one's my wheelhouse! The company had already shipped 3 successful vehicles, the X1A1 M5 Stuart modification, the X1A2 where it was essentially new production with some parts commonality with the X1A1, and that M41 variant. So, they had been operating tanks since WW2 and had designed and shipped 3 modern, ever-improved models by the time they got to the MBT. That was the entire project intent: train the engineers, find the flaws, learn what to do better in the next run. Next, they already had seen Leopard 1, etc. It's not like Brazil was cut off from the world. So the tank designers had a very clear picture of what was available, and what they had to do better, just the same as GM or Chrysler. As a platform, the tested configuration was better. However, the armor was worse, and so was the ammo IIRC. A really key point is that the XM-1 was not accepted as is. They had a huge list of improvements to be made for the production models. The Brazilian tank, essentially, already had these types of improvements built in. And that comes to the crux of the problem: it was a dead end. The hull could not take the weight of extra armor, the gun could not fire better ammo, and the inside didn't have generous amounts of room for later upgrades as Abrams. They were testing prototypes that could be further improved, and the Brazilian tank had a very dark and dim upgrade path. It absolutely was better than the XM1 as tested, though.

[@cericat]

@@baizen1 America's also tended to have a serious issue with NIH when it comes to materiel acquisition.

[@user-njyzcip]

Except he's already done a vid on that tank

[@saltyfloridaman7163]

Another tank myth is that many haters say that it's armor is very weak due to its thinnest armor at 670mm. It's thinnest armor may be 670mm, but the unique armor composite is rated for 1700mm+ RHAe at that spot. It's mainly due to tempered laminated polycarbonate, ceramic and lead compounds with other classified materials in regards to the M1A2

[@connorgormly3236]

Again I love these types of vidoes

[@seasuper3402]

One myth I wanna know about was the claim that the only challenger 2 to ever be destroyed through friendly fire by another challenger And the long list of myths about how tough it has been and the punishment it has taken

[@_ob200]

It’s not a myth, it’s well documented and can be found with a basic Google search

[@neilrogers6767]

M1 abrams has British armour development with modifications from the start. All tanks have pro's and cons, the crew make the actual fighting strength applicable. A crap crew will be in danger in any tank.

[@IMP-vi6je]

Iraqi forces: *write that down Patrick write that down*

[@jeanbr3415]

amazing video as always, can you do one on the Leclerc series?

[@Plumbump]

I always wanted to pull that governor lever, but never got a chance :( .. I seem to recall the hull ammo storage being for two 120mm rounds, but we used it to store stuff we weren't supposed to have :)

[@cmsIGauffahrgestellPanzerkampf]

Interesting if you could do a take on the challenger 2 or maybe even 3 or the much more hazy info of the leopard 2A7, which I believed was the most capable tank out of all others overall and still able to outperform the newer competing models like the M1 sep's and the T-14, especially in the personally brilliant protection part of it while still maintaining an impressive speed, plus it just looked cooler with the wedge shaped composite screens over the bland looking flat spaces on other modern tanks.

[@philswift4334]

I’m actually a M1 Tanker and I agree with most of this

[@maverick8697]

@4:17 The main issue with the GM prototype was that it had the ammo stowage similar to the Leopard 2. So the hull ammo was not isolated or protected by blow out panels.

[@heavyassaultmode1503]

As a former M1-A2 SEP gunner and commander, and having commanded one in combat, I can vouch for the overall accuracy of this vid. On the speed issue, I'm fairly certain an M-1 (60 tons), could do 60 mph on a flat paved road. We did over 50 mph in my M1-A1 (70 tons) at Ft. Knox armor training. The M1-A2 SEP I had in Mosul weighed over 80 tons with the enhanced armor, additional belly plate, 2nd .50 cal, reactive block armor, and still topped out at 42 mph, which is the official claimed top speed for the vehicle. And impressive as hell for an 80 ton mbt. The official listed weight of 63t for an M1-A2 SEP is without fuel, ammo, armor enhancements or weapon upgrades. You will not roll one into battle weighing less than 70 tons.

[@duckman5891]

The M1 Abrams gun is not centered with the turret :).

[@owllegostopmotion7633]

Perhaps myths regarding t72/90. They get a lot of flak online from what I have seen

[@jedispartancoolman]

I mean... have you seen how the performance against javelins

[@MercShame]

They take very little flak before going down in Ukraine apparently

[@h1tsc4n40]

in all fairnes... Latest real world events have shown that maybe some of that flak was well deserved.

[@BOTmaster15]

Have you seen "new" additional armor installed on T72B3 in backpacks? Those are just some kind of injection molded "egg cartons" polymer.

[@thejackal5099]

@@jedispartancoolman Javelins won't be able to hit T-90s due to Arena APS.

[@mcedd54]

In the early 1980's when the original M1 was first being fielded in West Germany, I was off duty, traveling on A66 west of Nuremburg. Up ahead a platoon of 4 M1's was in formation traveling in the slow lane, whoopy lights flashing. I had never seen one before in the flesh so to speak. In my POV I approached them from the rear, slowed down along side them and clocked them between 65-70 MPH. They were not struggling or putting out plumes of black exhaust like an M60 did at high RPM. They were however quite loud with turbine whine and a good bit of suspension racket. I often wondered if the governors had been left off on these four from the factory, they were being purposely tested at high speed on the autobahn or some speed freak motor sergeant had played around with them. They were a very impressive scene with the German drivers amazed at their speed. Right then and there I knew the jig-was-up for the Soviets.

[@AbramsGunner]

I don't believe early M1s were governed. We started out on M1 slicks and later pulled M1A1's in Germany (1988). The M1A1 was noticeably slower at the top end than the M1.

[@luggilu7864]

I think the hull ammo is more if an issue because most hits that penetrate it will rip a hole into the fighting compartment. Like a hut to the turret ammo through the sliding door would still send flames into the fighting compartment if not mitigating the blast doors effect entirely.

[@Predator20357]

seeing this video made me think of the Osorio and if there was some merit to it. So, I checked the Wikipedia to see if the belief of the Osorio was superior to the M1 Abrams was true or just a Myth however Wikipedia basically talks about how cheap it is, yet Algeria, Iraq, Libya, and Saudi Arabia all turned it down. It also talked about it used a heavy number of imported parts. I checked some more and despite winning a Tank Competition, it's deal to Saudi Arabia was floating in the water until they dropped the contract and purchased M1A2s because the M1A1 was proven quite well on the battlefield, and they had quite a bit of war Debt to the US. My opinion on this whole thing is that I can't say with full confident that it was superior to the M1 as it never saw combat and it's only claim to fame was winning a Tank Competition. Like there's a good chance it has some good things over the NATO counterparts however what seemed to be the best thing about it is just how cheap it is with Wikipedia claiming 3.8 million-1 million dollars to make one (Abrams is like 7-8 Mil). I can't even trust what really is going on with the tank as the US and Brazil involved in this and that's like trying to trust one Snake oil Salesman or another.

[@bickboose9364]

The fact no one wanted to buy it, not even the Brazilian govt, and that what's most known about is that it's cheap _(appart from winning that tank competition)_ says it all.

[@Predator20357]

@@bickboose9364 Well the Brazilians did keep it around until about 2013 but that can easily be explained as a sunk cost fallacy or them not wanting it all to be a massive waste of time and money.

[@christianwilson5956]

While it was probably a good vehicle it's biggest downside was the lack of production and support. Buying a leopard 2 or abrams is a safe bet because spare parts are readily available and only limited by your budget. You can also utilize US/German advisors and training programs to get your first generation of operators trained.

[@Predator20357]

@@christianwilson5956 True, I'm not saying there's no way it was trash, I just can't fully trust in it being better than NATO counterparts like the M1 and Challenger 1.

[@christianwilson5956]

@@Predator20357 I agree. I just wanted to point out the more likely reason as to why it would have been rejected. Another good example is the army modular handgun program in which the glock and berreta pistols outperformed the sig pistol that won the contract. The thing is all three met the requirements but the sig did so at a better cost to the military.

[@jonskeggi6132]

Could you make a video on the imbalanced state of the turbine engines. They are so loud that it actually nerfs all tanks that have it. While in real life this is not the case.

[@cheyannei5983]

Yes, the Abrams turbine irl is its quietest engine option. High performance diesels are not actually quiet.

[@stevenholmes8854]

Hmmm. I think they are both pretty loud, turbine and diesel.

[@Lieutenant_Volkov]

Can you make a video explaining all the pros and cons of the M1 Abrams?

[@theyalesubrailfan1849]

I read the thumbnail, misread as math, and panicked.

[@Mac_in_the_Hat]

All I know about M1's is how little fun it is to stand behind the right track going to the grunt phone and praying they don't throw her in reverse. Also if you treat the crews as human beings instead of typical POG types they'll let you dry off using the exhaust.

[@thevetdude19k]

Ahahaha crunchie!!!!... now be a good boot and bring me a case of rip it's and I will start this bitch so you can warm up

[@thevetdude19k]

@@Mac_in_the_Hat lol..yeah we got that treatment.... Welcome to Baghdad...here is the motor pool for your tanks.....and here is the motor pool for the 1151(2's) humvees you will be using....now secure that whole area...

[@stevenholmes8854]

They brought those back? (external phones). I remember those on the M60A3

[@Mac_in_the_Hat]

@@stevenholmes8854 I'm not sure if they ever left.

[@thevetdude19k]

@@stevenholmes8854 they were not on our tanks for a while, but got added back on in 07 when we got our TUSK installed on ours

[@stiglitz3532]

I have a request, can you cover in war thunder what vehicles are being found used in Ukraine? I'd like to see what you think about the modern Russian forces use of the different combat vehicles and some of the differences you notice from the in game perspective. Thanks for another great video, cheers!

[@playstation_one5446]

We need the Yugoslav tree

[@raptorjesus3894]

Easy. BMP 2 & 3, the BMD-4, the 2S25M, 2S3M, 2S6, Khrizantema-S, T-72 (Pretty much all models), T-90 A & M, T80U and T-80BVM. That's just for the Russians. Ukraine mostly uses the BMP 1 & 2, T-64B and has some T-72s, although the exact model of which is unclear. Whilst not in the game, they also use the T-84, which is basically a heavily modified T-80 that is built in Ukraine. Supposedly this tank was actually going to be one of the newest devblogs, but that has been put on hold due to the invasion and it would be kindda awkward putting it in the Russian tree at this point. (Also Russia doesn't need another god damn top-tier ffs)

[@trathanstargazer6421]

Honestly, a tank myth or discussion around the AMX 13 series. There is so much to cover it might make for a fun multi-part series.

[@michaelgautreaux3168]

Super vid! Many thanx 👍 🤔 Haven't found it, but have U covered the M-95 medium?

[@snepcheck2198]

if you'd be willing, tank myths about Italian tanks would be interesting. there's a lot of misinformation floating around, especially about IFVs.

[@IanAwfuls]

You didn’t bust the myths about weak LFP and not well protected turret neck. Sad.

[@dakotahondalock5621]

The turret neck isn’t well protected, what you’re calling a myth is just an exaggerated truth

[@eyyze]

The LFP was weak on older variants, what you're calling myth is just an exaggerated truth.

[@IanAwfuls]

@@dakotahondalock5621 it is a myth. turret necks are a common weakspots among all MBT's but that turret neck is not as weak protected as people tend to think basing their knowledge on war thunder. there are multiple layers of armor overlapping there.

[@arc_4543]

I’m an Abrams tanker. I was always told that the reason the Abrams has a speed governor is that at higher speeds, the cooling tubes on the tracks start to heat up and deform and you risk losing end connectors.

[@arc_4543]

I’ll add that I haven’t seen any official documentation stating this so I may be talking out of my ass

[@stevenholmes8854]

I tested to M256 track, not sure if they still use that, but never had that. We kept close watch on track tension and recorded a lot of info on how often we had to tighten end connectors. At the test tracks we had tension wrenches which they probably didn't have in the field (at least in the 90s). Correct tightness means a lot.

[@arc_4543]

@@stevenholmes8854 We still don’t get the right tools to maintain the track, all we get is a t-slide and a big ratchet. Not even a torque wrench to make sure the tolerances are right.

[@WoooshProductions]

I know this isn’t related to the video, but I would love to see you take a look at the Swedish tridon l/70 bofors truck in the next dumb vehicles series

[@crabman7115]

I think a video about the Leopard would be a good video and I also want to know if it really is as fast as some people say it is

[@sam8742]

spookston magically summoning every former abrams crewman to his comments

[@victormihaylov3905]

sorry for the bad english, french here, and it be cool if you do a general one on france. I think it self explain, but the war in XXe and france have some myths to it. also cool vidoe

[@SguarzGamers]

I know they are not the most popular but a video on the Ariete would be very meaningful to your Italian followers. The final test of the Ariete AMV have started and some pictures has already been posted, meaby you can find some sources :). Have a good one a keep it up with the good content. Chris

[@Spentbrass42]

i actually saw and was able to walk around one of the XM prototypes of the m1 recently and if they actually hit 60 with it its fucking impressive due to the real size of it.

[@JTPQuinn]

A friend of mine who served in Kosovo swears he disabled the governor on a Abrams. On flat terrain, he claims he topped out at 70mph, then the tracks disintegrated and stranded the tank. Can't verify it, but it's an epic story, ntl. 🇺🇸

[@leonardwei3914]

I think everyone who knows a tanker has been told a "so we disabled the governor on our Abrams" episode.

[@josephryan3597]

Could you do one of these videos on the M48 Patton?

[@JETBLACKCORD]

JetblackcordUWU here nice bloody shot thought I had enough time to sneak a shot in but couldn't see you from that angle

[@harlech2]

Flashback to 1982 Location: Anniston Army Depot A rebuilt M1 was fired up to do 2 laps on the test track. A guess they wanted to rag on it a bit. From a dead stop, I watched a M1 break traction on the tracks and do essentially a burn out. A sixty+ ton vehicle leaving a burn out on concrete. I do wish I had this on camera. My trips to AAD were sooo much fan and I have great memories of it.

[@Cadmium_wraith]

love to see something either on the leopard 2a6 or chieftain or challenger. since the challenger is getting a new version.

[@imaantagonist6322]

1. The M1s we sell to other countries are not the same as the ones we use. They don't have upgraded armor, tracking, gyros, and other systems. They are good tanks but not the same. 2) Having been on an M1A1 that was "adjusted for traing", it got to about 56ish. That was on flat land. Around that speed, the transmission blew and the right track locked up. We could only do circles. The XM1 was not the production M1 so it wouldn't perform the same. 3) Ammo. The M1 would store main gun ammo in the turret in what's called the "ready and semi-ready" racks. Those are behind the loader and the commander. The M1 also has some "hull" storage. The M1A1 and as far as I know all newer versions carry 40 rounds, 20 in each the "ready and semi-ready" racks. 4) Engine. What is said was technically true, however, it's worth noting that the M1 uses the Avco Lycoming AGT 1500 by Honeywell. You can see AGT 1500 on the clip shown in this video. One of the selling points is that it's a multifuel engine. Chrysler's tank manufacturing was sold to General Dynamics in 1986 so in the end. GD still won.

[@RADkate]

cant wait for the t90 episode :)

[@mckrunchytoast2469]

As I don't have sources other than someone I consider an honest person, older guy I work with was an Abrams commander in 89'. Top speed he safely reached was 52 but, the ride was so uncomfortable and the vibration was so intense it had started to back off some lugs on the road wheels.

[@markojuric979]

"Fun fact - Back in 1980 a friend of the family worked at the Warren Tank Plant (Detroit Tank Arsenal) where the first Chrysler Abrams XM-1s were produced (Suck it, Lima). He invited us to their "open house" where 14yr old me got to see a XM-1 do ungoverned 70mph laps around their test track. Pretty cool how the ground shook when it went by. I got bounced around in the back of a M113 too. That was a very fun day." quoted someone...interesting, not sure if its totaly true

[@chrisperrien7055]

The old "Chrysler*" M-1/XM-1's were the fastest of the M-1's . They were also the lightest M-1's. IIRC, they made "about" 2000 of them. After that came the M-1 IP's, which were "governed" down in Horse-power. Also many of the "XM-1's" over time got governed down/restricted when/if their power-pack and hydraulic pump got replaced with newer "IP" ones or just from wearing out.. The IP's were dogs compared to the good running XM-1's. I think the IP's had about 300 -500 less horsepower. And IIRC-the IP's weighed a little more too. My M-1/ XM-1 was serial number 0054 , I only got it to about 63 MPH with powerband to spare , I think it would have done 70+ MPH if I had max throttled it. but going over 60 MPH for about a mile on a dirt trail was fast enough for me , and I eased down. Was a very Bad-AZ tank. The horsepower/torque was unreal while going through/over terrain. * The "Chrysler" M-1's were partially made by Chrysler and partially by General Dynamics, before General Dynamics took over all production.

[@CMDRFandragon]

Honestly in all my time learning about tanks, the Abrams is actually better than I thought it was, especially when compared to other nation's tanks.

[@PimpofSolSquadron]

History looks back and smiles fondly at the sacrificial offering that was the MBT-70 program to stoke the creation of the Leo 2 and the Abrams. Think the rough Soviet equivalent was the T-62 being a dud, (though the -62M was pretty okay for what it was), and that spurred the creation of the T-64 family

[@7gmeister]

What most people don’t take into consideration when they judge the tank is that it was way ahead of it’s time and outclassed everything in the 80s. Most of the modern technology that’s standard on MBTs today was pioneered on the M-1 and we saw just how potent it was at the battle of 73 easting. The T-72s were still using hand cranks to turn their turrets and their armor was outdated and they just didn’t have the ability to move and shoot accurately the way the M-1 did. I seriously doubt that battle would have gone as well as it did had they been up against T-90s with comparable tech given that they stumbled into the enemy. It was their speed and the ability to move and shoot that kept them from losing tanks. It’s outdated now but the fact that it’s still viable with upgrades says a lot about it