In what areas are Russian tanks better than American tanks and vice versa

What makes a tank better? Is it raw firepower that decimates enemy positions, or pinpoint accuracy that delivers death from kilometers away?
When it comes to the giants of the battlefield -American and Russian tanks-the answer is far from simple. Each nation has poured decades of engineering prowess and military doctrine into crafting machines that excel in specific arenas, leaving the question of "better" hanging in the balance.
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv

[@polnoeceloe]

How dramatically people's opinions have changed, just a year ago if someone had said that a Russian tank is better than an American one, he would have been considered an extremely funny guy

[@gondaljutt7059]

You nothing a joke who believe rambo is reall. And this earth is flat. Americans antichrist tank is heavy expensive and hard repairs Russian tank lighet easy to repair and good for every ground.

[@SRB.4S]

The right comment, bravo, Exactly! We all know what was written and published in the western media in the last two years. And people fall for such nonsense, propagandistic lies... Do we remember the famous "game changers"?! Challenger 2, which here is not on the battlefield at all because it is unusable in a real war and on the ground in Ukraine, they are not even allowed to appear... Leopard 2 saw some of the action, but as soon as it appeared it was destroyed, and to make matters worse it was not used intensively every day, but only occasionally, at least twenty pieces were destroyed, and the Leopard 2, it has not been anywhere for months, I guess they are kept somewhere so that the Russians don't destroy them all. Abrams is being destroyed on a daily basis, but recently, it was also destroyed by the modernized T-72B3M! So many "game changers" are good for propaganda behind the robbery of people in the West through the military industrial complex, with which they sell military equipment and tanks that are really not worth half of that money. While the Russians and Chinese get excellent military equipment, even tanks , at a similar or better level than the western ones, for very little money for their army. Because the Russian and Chinese military industry is managed and disposed of by the state. So they get everything at the best prices. While the US military industrial complex, manages the state's media, installs and removes politicians, and their mainstream media, who are promoting "game changers that are so expensive because they are 100 times better than their Russian and Chinese counterparts"?! Of course, the majority of people in the West believe in such nonsense and bullshit... The problem is that the first real war after WW2, the one in Ukraine, showed exactly that, it's all just bullshit from the Western mainstream media. And that American and generally Western tanks did not bring any power to the Ukrainians, on the contrary. They proved to be generally worse than Russian tanks.

[@Don8Maverick]

if you think that every piece of american weaponry is the best in the world means that you've inhaled too much propaganda or just straight out dumb, even if USA have better technology to produce X weapon they won't produce it because of their very specific doctrine thus it'll leave them with way weaker X weapon

[@THB1945]

Truth speaks for itself if we’d just let it speak.

[@LSmoney215]

American tanks are better and t14 haven’t begun mass production. T90 isn’t better than m1

[@VLADDD-THE-SANCTIONS-IMPALER]

American tanks are like our women 1. Heavy set 2. Expensive to maintain 3. Unreliable

[@klopko249]

That is too real. XD

[@THB1945]

So you mean the Russian women are the opposite? 😁Time to get one!

[@gnpsbm]

Obese and sinking in the mud

[@JasonHarvey-tt2bi]

👍 😂

[@flareamv5503]

exactly

[@bigtoad45]

When you build a tank so big and heavy that most bridges cannot hold it up then you have an issue...

[@Yahtzee1]

Or maybe it's the case where a tank is deployed in conditions in which it was not designed for? But to heck with details amirite?

[@bansheep1]

Ukraine has shown us that parts, serviceability and logistics make the T72 the best..

[@JohnDoe-rq5bz]

Russians dont know what logistics is.

[@TheJimmyidol]

See Eastern Front, WW2.

[@Nellis202]

@@TheJimmyidol Yup ! The T34 was certainly bad ass !

[@hihosilvuh9438]

Wtf propagandabare you watching lololol Russian tanks rusting all over Ukraine lol. By no means do Russians have better logistics than anyone except north Korea 😂😂😂😂

[@fridaynight3181]

Nah it is worse tank. US army Abrams absolutely destroyed dozens of t72s in gulf war already. T72 didn't stand a chance. They are way fkin slower, awful 3kmph reverse speed and slow ass turret rotation compare to the trained US Abrams with jet engines. It was a slaughter. But people here didn't even know about it and happy over the unmanned 40 years old Abrams getting disabled by drones

[@omaral-maitah181]

with all the respect 😅 A lot of arrogant Americans & Europeans are getting humbled by the "Old" Russian Tanks they were mocking & underestimating last year. Moral of the story, Any Tank is destructible, & Any Tank with a working cannon & experienced crew "no matter how old" is still dangerous.

[@user-gr7dz8vg1d]

It’s the drones, not tank on tank. It works both ways.

[@omaral-maitah181]

@@user-gr7dz8vg1d Drones, Helicopters, ATGMs, Mines ... modern warefare are complex But alot of people overhype things & underestimate others without any knowledge or experience So many irritiatng ignorance on the Internet

[@djgnu]

@@omaral-maitah181Americans are very good at this.

[@explosivedonuts3764]

At lying? Yea ​@@djgnu

[@misty1226]

Gun is a gun, thats all you should know about weapons

[@lastsam9846]

Russian tanks are better cause they're very tough, easy to maintain, lots of modifications, made for long leriods of operations needing few maintenance only and it's still cheaper.

[@booyalol]

Why are they losing the war tho?😅

[@makoado6010]

@@booyalol russians won this war a years ago. they r just bleed out the economy of nato countries.

[@lastsam9846]

@@booyalol Plus we comparing tanks. Stay on topic. Battlefield got more than just tanks. Got artillery, air force, infantry, cruise missiles, rocket artillery, mortars...Tanks play a big role when properly backed by other weapon systems. That's why NATO tanks getting blown up quickly, Russians seeing them coming by themselves from miles away.

[@fridaynight3181]

@@lastsam9846 US army Abrams absolutely destroyed dozens of t72s in gulf war already. T72 didn't stand a chance. They are way fkin slower, awful 3kmph reverse speed and slow ass turret rotation compare to the trained US Abrams with jet engines. It was a slaughter. But people here didn't even know about it and happy over the unmanned 40 years old Abrams getting disabled by drones

[@user-xo6sk5oy2c]

@@fridaynight3181 war tander наигрался умничка много знаешь

[@michaelvepr6117]

The M1A2 SEP v3 Abrams costs $24,000,000, while the T14 Armata costs $5,000,000 to $9,000,000. I would definitely choose 3 or 4 modern Armata tanks, or 8 T90s, for the price of one overpriced A1 Abrams designed in the 1980s.

[@ObeyNoLies]

Seriously? 24 mil? I thought the Type 10 was exorbitant at 11.3 mil.

[@kaimanwhite8763]

Where are the T-14s at?

[@JohnDoe-rq5bz]

M1 Abrams is 8 million a copy. Try doing some research pumpkin. I bet you love communism.

[@user-hk1qn9ue2t]

@@kaimanwhite8763There are about 20 of them. Before you laugh, you need to remember how many Challengers Ukraine has (7 left) and Abramses in total (30).

[@anuragtiwari5661]

​@@ObeyNoLiesprobably export version cost, they are expensive and less efficient you know

[@retrogazele]

Russian tanks have a low profile . Why are saying the opposite .. t14 focuses on crew safety . Since all crew are in front capsule.

[@inwedavid6919]

well still not on the battle front yet, does it really work or just propaganda like most of the hardware seen in this front?

[@jimmylei4728]

The Abrams sounds like it was made for vacation in a war, while the Armata was made for practicality.

[@novemberalpha6023]

Armata is yet to be field tested in real battle

[@trololoev]

@@novemberalpha6023 still it made for battle, it constantly changing from experience that tanks in Ukraine received. Not surprise if at day of release it will have build-in anti-drone jamming, cage and weapon to shoot drones.

[@eudaenomic]

You can take an old m1 to battle but not the T14.

[@flareamv5503]

@@eudaenomicsee you can use the armata aramata isnt in use yet since it is a platform not a tank alone so armata platfrom would replace tanks example T14, IFVs T15, AA etc etc etc that is why they arent in use compared to Abrams X which is just a piece of junk same as the new panther of the germans it is too expensive to use and parts are hard to come by

[@sniper60605]

Has the T-14 ever left the Red Square parade grounds?

[@igory3789]

As current war in Ukraine shows, American tanks are useless at least in Eastern European terrain, they are simply not designed for some specific weather conditions ( rainy weather, muddy soil). Too heavy, too slow, period.

[@johnrussell3755]

yes period

[@fridaynight3181]

No you wrong. It's all skill issue

[@igory3789]

@@fridaynight3181 Mud doesn’t care about how skilled you are.

[@Randomuser-ei7is]

@@fridaynight3181 No, it is not a skill issue, even mighty German tankers did poorly against Soviet union for much of ww2. Now will you say that the country(Nazis) which captured 6 countries in 2 months and entire europe had skill issue?? (Nazis captured France,Belgium,Luxembourg,Netherlands,Denmark,Norway during Apr-June 1940)

[@TheTikTok10KChallenge]

The same sand and heavy mud in Iraq bogged down many Abrams tanks and Humvees as well. The big lesson is no matter what armor you are hiding behind these new drones, artificial intelligence, thermal and night vision, plus GPS being used today makes every soldier sitting in a trench, heavy artillary, command center, storage center, or a barracks a "sitting duck." We as humans should spare lives by sending robots off to war and whoever runs out of fucking money to build the most sophisticated robots loses the war.

[@khaan5109]

Cost, manufacturing and maintenance time is the corner stone! Americans are too complex and expensive for modern warfare when a multimillion dollars tank can be destroyed with a $100 drone!

[@rednut]

Да ничего он не сложен, это миф, недавно наши залезли в подбитый Абрамс - ну помойка помойкой, это просто маркетинговый ход для продаж по всему миру, не стоит он этих денег

[@gordoncharles741]

If you are a war mongering aggressor then of course you would choose the American Tanks but if your main goal is the defense of your own country you would choose the Russian Tanks.

[@flareamv5503]

facts

[@gordoncharles741]

@@flareamv5503 correct

[@Damian_Henry]

M1abrams armours are doing great in Ukraine 😂 they are smoking hot

[@bigpofficial4844]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@FileFixer007]

With pinpoint accuracy.😀

[@jacques-oliviernicolas226]

How many Abrams do Americans build each month? Every month, Russia produces more tanks than the English have… The Americans produced a huge number of Sherman tanks which were totally inferior to the German Tigers and Panthers, but significantly more numerous, more reliable and easier to maintain.

[@pandibbarman]

​@@jacques-oliviernicolas226i think America has over 8000 abrams already

[@kenrik2105]

Abrams tanks require 3 hours of maintenance for every hour driven. Not a problem for a well-trained US tank crew with access to repair facilities.

[@CobraQuotes1]

Thats horrible and will always be a problem.

[@MultiGodfather]

In a way its good. Imagine what an enemy has to go through to use your captured tank.

[@SRB.4S]

By way of comparison, the T-72B3M does not require 3 hours of maintenance, not even for a month of use, let's say... Which brings us to the fact that the T-72, like all Russian tanks, was made for a long and real war! What you wrote is of course correct, Mr. Colonel McGregor talked about it, if anyone knows anything about Abrams, it is him. He also said and stated that the turbine engine was a serious failure, and that it was long overdue to switch to a better and more economical diesel engine, as on the Leopard 2... Because the turbine engine is a logistical nightmare, as well as a huge consumer of fuel, and that worst for a modern battlefield, it has a large IR reflection. The level of maintenance required for this tank to function properly is also shocking?! For the US army, all this may not be a problem in a small conflict in a war with completely incompetent and very weak opponents, in terms of training and military equipment... Against whom the US army has only fought so far... In a real war against a serious of the army, it's still a huge problem, and when it comes to maintenance and logistics and everything else... Which is proven in Ukraine in a real war and on a modern battlefield.

[@GOD719]

Completely false. Do you think Abrams went out in combat in iraq. Fought for a few hours.. Came back. and maintenance crews had to do repairs every time? No. Abrams went out. Fought for several hours. Came back. Parked in the motor pool. Went out the next day. Fought. Came back. parked at the motor pool. Went out the next day fought. ect ect.. 3 hours is the time to swap out the powerplant. Abrams crews somethings had stay in their tanks longer than 24 hours during combat. When Abrams were traveling from Kuwait to Iraq. Do you think they stopped for maintenance?

[@smyers820gm]

@@GOD719yeah the Russian trolls are so gullible and stupid.

[@PRISMAS76]

How can a chanel have it so wrong, M-1 is better in long range? Really? they completely forgot that all Russian tanks use Anti Tank Missiles which are longer range than any round that the M-1 can shoot, Russian tanks does not have space armour...

[@alpenfoxvideo7255]

those missiles have been mostly retired from combat decades ago, because the issues they bring with the autoloader mechanism and the residues in the gun

[@PRISMAS76]

@@alpenfoxvideo7255 Are you kidding? They have been changing generation over and over the Missiles, there are docens of videos of T-72, T-80 and T-90 shooting Missiles, and I don´t know what residues you are talking about, when they use the same propellant just to take the missile out of the barrel and then it will start its own engine.

[@GREATRussia1990]

The American M1 technically have old armor from the 80s! Barely changed since then! The Russian/Soviet tank designers were the first to equip tanks with composite armor and the T-64 is the first tank with composite armor! The spaced armor is a thing of WW2! The Russian tanks have decent protection compared to the western tanks! With the composite armor they are also equiped with ERA! Something that the western tanks lacked to these days! Also the Russian tanks are quite capable of fighting on long range engagements! And unlike the western tanks the Russian tanks have HE shells! For the mobility - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.............The Russian tanks have generaly quite high power to weight ratio especially the gas turbine T-80s! The M1s latest variant probably has around 22 hp per ton while the T-80U or the T-80BVM have more than 27 hp per ton! Just there is no way a 70 ton tank can be agile as a 50 ton tank! Even the diesel variants of the Russian tanks have higher power to weight ratio than the Abrams latest variants!

[@kronk420]

In defence of the armour (chobham) the reason that they still use it is because there is currently nothing better ,whether that armour is old or not. And for your information it was developed by British scientists in the early 1970's not 80's..

[@GREATRussia1990]

@@kronk420 Oh I know who invented that armor! Also the same Brits invented the Dorchester armor which is superior to the chobham armor! But the americans chosed to add depleted uranium cuz they cant afford the new protection from the brits! Same is with M1s gun and powerplant!

[@user-bk6gx7sg3j]

​@@kronk420 Anything developed by the English is crap. This is why English tanks in Ukraine are hidden in bunkers that are protected by Soviet tanks

[@travismccraw6013]

​@@GREATRussia1990 imagine type a bunch of nonsense. I'd take it, you get your info from war thunder?

[@flareamv5503]

M1 Abrams in ukraine has upgraded armor to 2024 standard

[@reginaldlagrone5082]

The U.S. has one tank (MI Abrams), not tanks. Russia has several tanks (T-72,T-80,T-90 and T-14) for various combat conditions and environments. There is no comparison, unless you compare Russia to the world tank fleet.

[@warukraine9650]

😂😂😂NATO tanks are good for a parade of Hollywood movies and fighting bare-handed shepherds in the Middle East... like most NATO weapons, while we had Soviet weapons, we had such a chance.... the statement was made by the Commander-in-Chief of the Military Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine Yuriy

[@user-qk9he7se5w]

That's why the russian tanks have more air time the the russian airforce😂😂😂

[@pandibbarman]

😂​@@user-qk9he7se5w

[@schrimpf]

The Abrams tanks burn much brighter. To enlighten the battlefield a clear advantage….😮

[@fridaynight3181]

US army Abrams absolutely destroyed dozens of t72s in gulf war already. T72 didn't stand a chance. They are way fkin slower, awful 3kmph reverse speed and slow ass turret rotation compare to the trained US Abrams with jet engines. It was a slaughter. But people here didn't even know about it and happy over the unmanned 40 years old Abrams getting disabled by drones

[@johnfogarty4360]

@@fridaynight3181 The gulf war was 30 years ago

[@fridaynight3181]

@@johnfogarty4360 also the Abrams in Ukraine is 40 years old

[@inwedavid6919]

yes but it don't kill its crew, T72 models familit makes no mercy for its crew with turets bumping far in the air.

[@joseoscardelgadobautista2105]

Well... in this few weeks, Abrahams are destroyed by drones, so this tanks are a joke :v

[@niweshlekhak9646]

Russian tanks have been destroyed by drones too.

[@fridaynight3181]

US army Abrams absolutely destroyed dozens of t72s in gulf war already. T72 didn't stand a chance. They are way fkin slower, awful 3kmph reverse speed and slow ass turret rotation compare to the trained US Abrams with jet engines. It was a slaughter. But people here didn't even know about it and happy over the unmanned 40 years old Abrams getting disabled by drones

[@alispeed5095]

@@niweshlekhak9646 russians never claimed that there tanks were wonder weapons. Americans did

[@user-jd8fk1td1q]

The Abrams are visible from space because of the heat, it's like drawing a target on your forehead!)))

[@rexhansen2766]

Then why do Abrams burn so well?

[@TjZz]

Because most western tanks were built to fight Abdul and his goats not Ivan and his vodka 😂

[@kaimanwhite8763]

At least the turret doesn't fly off

[@cosmincasuta486]

@@kaimanwhite8763 Yeap... It is easy to recover the iron!

[@halfevilhalfgood2206]

​@@TjZzreality triggered them bro😂

[@SRB.4S]

Quite a good analysis, but you also presented conflicting and not so accurate data. Of course, it is logical that the crew has better comfort when they are in a huge tank like the Abrams, that is correct and logical. Superior situational awareness with Abrams yes, but again it depends in comparison with which Russian tank?! If we compare it with the T-72A from 1979, it is certainly true, if we compare it with the T-72B3M, or the T-90M, that is not exactly true, or it is only partially true. Also, Abrams as a tank for high-intensity conflicts, as you say, is not true. ! Why ? Well, because Abrams did not lead such a war until the war in Ukraine, so that we could see his possibilities. In Ukraine, he proved to be quite bad as far as modern warfare and high-intensity conflicts are concerned. So your statement is incorrect. What you said is true, that Russian tanks are robust, durable, adaptable, easy to maintain and also very cheap to train crews and to maintain... All that Abrasm and other western tanks of the 3rd generation are not again , we are talking about experiences from the real war in Ukraine, for Western tanks of the 3rd generation. As for accuracy at longer distances, ballistic computer and laser range finder...Abrams certainly has an advantage, but compared to which Russian tank?! Compared to older variants of T-72/80/90 tanks YES! But in relation to the newer modernized variants and new ones of these tanks, definitely NOT. Also the effectiveness at longer distances is also problematic for Abrams compared to modern Russian tanks. T-72B3M/T-80BVM or the new T-90M. Why? Well, I still don't understand why all Western analyzes of Russian and Western tanks avoid the fact that all Russian tanks after 1985 have the ability to fire laser-guided missiles from cannon tubes as well as ordinary projectiles. The range of the Svir is 4 km, and the Reflex rocket is up to 5 km. Which exceeds the range of every western tank, including the Abrams. Which has an older version of the 120 mm gun, a German copy, which the Germans on the Leopard2A6 put out of service, and now they use the L-55 if I'm not mistaken. , with a longer barrel and a longer range. Also, no western tank can be used as artillery, which is very deadly, especially in such intensive conflicts, against bunkers, enemy infantry, cover... Soviet/Russian tanks can be successfully and easily used for such tasks .So it is very difficult to say that Abrams is a better tank at longer distances if it has a shorter range than Russian modern tanks?! At shorter distances and in urban combat, Abrams is certainly worse. As far as protection is concerned, the Abrams is somewhat better, but that is also logical. When the tank is about 70t, compared to the Russian modernized and new tanks T-72/80/90, which have from 42 to 50t, but you forgot to mention that Russian tanks have excellent ERA protection. But in the first real war in Ukraine, for the Abrams and for the other Western tanks of the 3rd generation, we did not really see that this allegedly much "more advanced and better armor than Russian tanks" helped them?! They were destroyed without problems, especially the Abrams. So the Russian tanks did not show themselves, as you say, more "vulnerable to modern threats"?! In translation, the Abrams is a larger target, it is less agile and maneuverable on the modern battlefield, and it is destroyed very quickly, so its size and weight are only disadvantages, and it does not compensate for much better armor protection than Russian tanks, or at least not by as much it weighs 25-30t. Of course, the wrong conclusion that is drawn is about Abrams' earlier wars against opponents who had neither a serious army, training nor serious tanks, serious anti-tank systems... So, in those conflicts, Abrams was perhaps dominant. In the real war in Ukraine, it is funny, for now. Abrams may be passable compared to the Challenger 2, which is completely unusable for a serious war. But compared to the modernized and new Russian tanks T-72B3M/T-80BVM/T-90M... It is worse in every respect on all terrains in the world. ! Especially in Ukraine, Western tanks of the 3rd generation are almost unusable on snow and ice in deep mud... What we saw from the war in Ukraine are facts. What agility and speed are you talking about?! Please don't, those are funny stories?! The T-72B3M and T-80BVM can reach a speed of over 80km/h and this was seen at the biathlon. The T-72B3M reached a speed of 80km/h with, of course, new engines and an automatic transmission, which are installed in this tank, the same uses and the new T-90M engine has a power of 1130 hp! So the Russian modernized and new tanks are significantly faster, more agile, more mobile, more maneuverable, more passable than Abrams and any western tank of the 3rd generation. At the same time, they are more durable, more reliable, easier to use, have a higher utility value, a higher value invested and obtained up to 10 times compared to the Abrams, they are much more economical and consume less fuel, easier to transport, train the crew, easier and much cheaper to maintain, purchase and use in a real war! When it comes to adaptation and transport by airplanes and use in all kinds of environments and terrains... It's already clear to everyone, I didn't expect it to be clear to you that Russian tanks are much more adaptable to conditions, more durable, more passable on all terrains, easier to maintain. ..Russian tanks are significantly better than Abrams which weighs 70t?! So you're wrong there too. I guess it's easy for God's sake to transport the T-72/90/80, which are almost twice as small as the Abrams and 20 to 25tons lighter?! It is possible to transport 2 T-72 or T-90 tanks instead of just one Abrams. So you made a mistake there. Also Russian tanks T-72/T-90 are used practically without problems on all continents Europe, Asia, Africa, America... Which is not exactly the case with Abrams. Of course, the wrong overestimations and expectations of the West are still the same since the Cold War era. Well, by comparing the old outdated export degraded variants of the Soviet tanks T-55, T-62 and T-72M, which was produced in Poland, not in the USSR and was never part of the former USSR, later Russia, precisely for those reasons, because it was degraded ,bad tank. Who were the Iraqis later, and how did the weak, untrained Iraqi army cope with the modern, US NATO army? From this, the US and NATO concluded that Russian modern tanks and the army are just like Iraq's?! And to their regret, the war in Ukraine proved that wrong assessment. And Ukrainians pay for it. How would the West have fared if they had gone to war against the USSR at the time. The West, the US and NATO would have fared very badly! We were able to find out just that, when we look at the tanks, because they are still lying to themselves "that one Western modern and high-quality tank is worth at least 10 Russian bad and low-quality tanks, and that the alleged quality would prevail in relation to the Soviet quantity"?! which of course is a catastrophically wrong assessment! However, Abrams and other tanks in Ukraine of Western origin have shown the exact opposite. That the logistical seas for a real war are difficult and too expensive to maintain, slow and a large target, very poorly passable tanks and heavy, very complicated and expensive to train the crew, too expensive and poor maintenance for a real war ... And the quality that is so praised it is not proven to be better than Russian tanks, on the contrary, Russian tanks have proven to be more durable and robust in real war. And they proved that one on one they can be better than western tanks, ask Abrams, he knows it best!

[@MartinVonReichenberg]

_Just to note:_ _There has been M1 Abrams X to cope with the newer/newest Russian tanks._ ⛽

[@foshizzlfizzl]

Soviet/Russian tanks are definitely better suited for rough environments with difficult soil. Less weight, less pressure on the ground. Lower signature because they are smaller. Definitely easier to repair and much easier to learn and by far easier to maintain in a conflict environment. They are no divas. Less fuel consumption. Missile ammunition for longer ranges. Definitely an advantage is fragmentation ammo against troops.

[@destwong]

Lol one is produced few thousand and another one is got a handful of them ....

[@jamesortiz5388]

The tanks are like the Russian planes bolt on new parts a you're ready to go.

[@thybonheng1485]

The stupid about the Abrams tank is too heavy and only use jet fuel also fking expensive 💸🪖

[@ps9898]

No it can drive on any type of fuel

[@thybonheng1485]

Oh really Dose jet engine take any type of fuel bruh

[@cosmincasuta486]

@@ps9898 Yes...With sun flower oil too!🤣🤣🤣

[@ambarishudta6291]

Good point👍..this he didn't explained.

[@milanmarinkovic3016]

Yes, turbine engines can use any flamable liquide as a fuel. They are simple in concept, consists of what is basically a fire place and boiler. Fuel burns, produces heat, that warms up air or liquide, ( water). Hot gas or steam expands and turns blades of the turbine. Same principe is used for helicopter, and Navy ships engines, jet engines, nuclear subs, nuclear and conventional power plants ... It is rarely choosen for tanks. First one was T -80. As everything, turbine engines have advantages and disadvantages - they can use different fuels but need much more of it. Much more thirsty then diesel engine. They are also much more loud and warm, (more visible in the IC spectrum They wäre down faster - need more maintenance because turbine revolutions are much higher.

[@samsharif4768]

The answer is that the American tanks are built to fight outdated 3rd world country armies, while Russian tanks are built to face any army!!

[@GOD719]

Abrams was designed to fight the soviets With, t72, t80s, t90s

[@Warren_Peace]

@@GOD719 The Abrams are designed to fight with a massive logistics train behind it, which is not often the case when fighting a near-peer military... The Russian T-Series is designed under the assumption that there will not have the leisure to do proper maintenance.

[@fridaynight3181]

​@@Warren_PeaceAbrams already destroyed dozens of t72s in gulf war. Abrams and leo absolutely beat t72 in every accept. Speed, reverse speed, turret rotation, technology, armor, gun accuracy all go to Abrams and leo

[@Warren_Peace]

@@fridaynight3181 The Abrams and the Leo did that under extremely favorable circumstances.. The Abrams or the Leo could engage and disengage at will due to the T-72s not having night vision or even range finders in some cases and western tanks can rely on having satellites and aircraft to determine enemy position... These tanks no longer have the same advantages in Ukraine, and with the T-72s having access to ATGMs and advanced munitions that could extend the range of their guns, they now have equivalent range to both Western tanks...

[@fridaynight3181]

@@Warren_Peace Abrams and leo still have better mobility, better armor, better crew protection system, better aiming time, better gun accuracy and overall better state than the cheap Russia tank. All Abrams and leo need is right crews and tactics

[@clarkisaac6372]

Small-sized, minimized weak points.

[@alexracoon4513]

The Abrams tanks are burning like toys in Ukraine

[@lasvegastransparencycopwat6705]

You are right about that. But you purposely forgot to mention that the Abrams that's in Ukraine are the first generation of Abrams not even close to the tanks that the US Fields today

[@jonathon5411]

​@@lasvegastransparencycopwat6705no they lied ukraine got the best American tanks

[@shatbad2960]

To be fair, all tank types are!

[@jonathanmcfarland288]

All tanks are burning over there.

[@BaronEvola123]

Ehh. A) old m1's. B) You're watching the same pictures over and over. C) Everything is relative. D) How were they used?

[@higirogodfrey8721]

Here, we need to be a bit quiet as a whisper kind of talk coz Dear Friends real inventors never have time to Brag/ Boast like America does most of the time. All their Technology is matched/ measured against Russia 's . Why? Simple; " However much a new broom sweeps better, an old one in the game already knows all corners " thank you.

[@higirogodfrey8721]

You see Friends, leadership is a blessing direct from God and USA once had such leaders such as JF Kennedy RIP where he defined Civil rights movement as; Moral, constitutional and Legal, Franklin Roosevelt RIP a man who champion ed The Tennessee Valley Project ( TVA) to act upon a problem domestically ,Do you Gentlemen think America din't have foreign policy problems that time? But priority backed by sobberness. In our time, from a pandemic ( Corona virus 2019 / Covid 19 ) America (USA) lost 1m Pple btn 2020- May 2022 only by Data declaration and as we know this was not close to the actual number, 16 Trillion US Dollars or roughly 90% of the annual GDP of USA etc So my Friends, Americans and the likes of me from a Third World country in Africa , what would I or You who is Sobber have prioritized Home / go to Taiwan, Ukraine to flex with Super Powers of China and Russia??

[@alpenfoxvideo7255]

is this video AI? who would give credit to the T-90M tank being better at all other tanks in suppressing fire because it boasts "coaxial machine guns" wtf

[@ziggyzap1]

American tanks have better armor, Russian tanks have one less crew replaced by an autoloader,. Russian tanks are more robust and can go longer distances especially thanks to their diesel engines. The 125mm with modern ammo is better than the 120 mm of the Abrams. America had more abrams then russia has upgrades T-72B3's T-90's and T-14 Armata. It is more down to quality vs quantity and a tiring balance between them

[@mou5007]

M1 Abrahams detroyed in Ukraine obsolètes 😂😂😂😂😂

[@darthtleilaxu4021]

"Quantity is quality" Joseph STALIN.

[@ziggyzap1]

and I don't mean to say Russia has great quality tanks but the 3 tanks I mentioned the T-72B3, T-90, and T-14 are the only ones who can take on an Abrams in a fight. (not meaning they will beat them but they stand a chance)

[@kaimanwhite8763]

​@@mou5007So are russian tanks

[@mou5007]

@@darthtleilaxu4021 👺👺

[@PamweChete2503]

T90 and T14 have better battlefield mobility than the M1 Abram’s. Also the 2A82-1M smooth bore gun that is fitted to the T-90 and Armata is significantly more powerful than the RH-120 L/55 of the Leopard 2A6, offering 40% greater KE at 2000 meters.

[@user-uz8mh8nb7f]

Which tank would I choose? I would choose the FPV drone.

[@vagabondhippo8967]

People come to think it's all about tanks like it is a separated unit like a video game. It's all about firepower, speed, protection, accuracy, but this all just on the short term But It's all about how much and how fast you can replace or repair your losses on the long term

[@qyp3511]

RU tank is much cheaper and build much faster.

[@koinkollector2873]

But can it run on vodka? 🤔

[@grigorius86]

​@@koinkollector2873 the crew can 😁, not sure about the tank 😜

[@kaimanwhite8763]

That's a plus, but cheaper tanks are worse at protecting the crew. Russian tanks aren't bad, but the crew is the most important. You can replace a tank, not the experience of the crew

[@DiabloGamingLTD]

​@@kaimanwhite8763 safe as the western couteer parts if Russia did a super heavy tank like the challenger or Abrams now that would be crazy.

[@kaimanwhite8763]

@DiabloGamingLTD maybe but it would be too expensive for Russia, more resource heavy, and goes against russian tank doctrine

[@ediss821]

Who can see the enemy first than he win the fight. No one of MBT can survive in the real war, wich of this MBT equiped with high fire power thats be able to destruction each other.

[@anuragtiwari5661]

Well that depends, first tank to tank clashes are very rare, and 2nd generally, when a assault takes place, it is guided by a drone, making it much more effective and high chances of survivality in the dual. Experience and skills of crew also matters the most, Ukraine however is using unskilled and not much trained crew, making T-90 winning most probable, in a dual scenario

[@ediss821]

@@anuragtiwari5661 i saw the facts, thats event T72 B3 was an ability to destroy M1A1/2, terrifically in first main shoot rather with ATGM.

[@DiabloGamingLTD]

Why is he comparing M1 wirh thr T14, should be the T90,at72 qnd T80 or even a T64

[@higirogodfrey8721]

In what Areas???? How many World Wars has America fully participated in ever since it's independence? For your information even the 2nd World War that it claims and take credit to have fought with Russia against Nazi Germany was actually Russia 's 😂😂😂😂😂

[@feroth4297]

take a history book and start learning , how much aid has the US send to Russia ???

[@higirogodfrey8721]

@@feroth4297 You're the one that must go for that ASP Dear Friend.

[@higirogodfrey8721]

@@feroth4297 You're the one that must go for that ASP Dear Friend.

[@GOD719]

@@higirogodfrey8721 U.S supplied Russia during the lend lease. Including planes, trucks, tanks, oil, etc. If Germany fought Russia from the start. Germany would have kicked the shit out of Russia. Germany got within a couple miles of moscow. If countries like the U.S and Britain didn't bomb German factories. Yeah Russia would have lost.

[@TyroneSayWTF]

What good is American technology if it's designed, manufactured, operated, and maintained by DEI hires and other subversive acts of undermining buffoonery? (see the Boeing Aerospace company for a recent reference)

[@BaronEvola123]

The DEI thing doesn't hold true in The Ukraine. That's for soft, cushiony jobs, not for front line soldiers.

[@Warren_Peace]

@@BaronEvola123 Have you met Emma and her two moms?

[@coochykilla]

Based

[@nicolasdb4461]

how conveniant to talk about the T14 Casper (because we don't see it on a real battlefield).

[@milanmarinkovic3016]

Like in any field of engineering design "the best tank" is a compromise. Finding right balance between different, (many of them contradictory) factors. Fire power, manoueverability, crew protection, ease of production/maintenance, size,(bigger tank is a bigger target). terrain configuration and climate/weather of expected theater of operation. Doctrinal role. I mentioned a few important factors, there are many more. It is not easy to strike optimum balance in a design.

[@ivaneskic9775]

The policy in the US is not to ask veterans what they should do, but to make things that often break in order to make more money...

[@tomwolfe6063]

I can't think of a situation where I would choose to be in a Russian tank instead of an American one. It's baffling to even consider it.

[@gothamgoon4237]

Why are you constantly saying Russian tanks have larger profiles while the exact opposite is true? The T series tanks are significantly smaller than their western counterparts, especially the Abrams. Your own thumbnail photo even shows the huge disparity in size. Abrams is a BIG boy. The Russian tanks have way lower profiles.

[@oskars1832]

После многих лет пропаганды танк Абрамс узнал настоящею войну, а не голливудские фильмы. И 4 бедолаги не успели сделать не одного выстрела были уничтожены. Один опозорился максимально его уничтожил БТР 82, правда и БТР тоже был уничтожен. Но БТР 82 это автобус с 30 мм пушкой.

[@eleveneleven572]

Lower profile, greater speed, lighter, fuel economy, diesel not jet fuel, low maintenance.

[@tuscanyjc]

Abrams major issues, price, to heavy sink like a stone in mud, price again, engine is a fuel hog, price again, engine is way to complex gas turbine, price again

[@Cristiano-----]

price again😂

[@schrimpf]

…to say it one word: ….SCRAP

[@AbuBawa-sw1ut]

in every area

[@axiondarion4899]

I like the T80BVM Model 2023.

[@terrencedludlu8370]

I would opt for Firepower, easy of maintenance, spead amd motility and local terrain acquitted.

[@VLADDD-THE-SANCTIONS-IMPALER]

Btw, the Russians stole Tank design from US in 1915 after they bought a armoured truck with tank chassis importing it as a agri tractor After they understood the design they built their devastating t34 which was better than panzer models

[@Warren_Peace]

The Americans were terrible tank designers... That is why most tanks in WW2 are essentially copied from the French...

[@redfoure]

The Abrams was designed for active defense against a soviet invasion of western Europe, wherein protection and firepower were important. Short range mobility was an added benefit, but is extremely costly in fuel and a liability in offensive operations. Soviet, now Russian, tanks were designed for offensive operations where mobility and reliability/sustainability were more important. Firepower was mostly for engagements of necessity vs other tanks.

[@MatteoRomanelli-kl9fb]

In a large scale prolonged conflict the simplicity and easy maintenance are a key component. This war in Ukraine has reassured the lessons from WW2.

[@BorisPerc]

patent for targeting system on the move is ours

[@eohq]

Video starts at 1:37

[@BenVaserlan]

1:51 How is it "iconic"?

[@chinohitya]

lol I keep seeing the argument " Abrams was made to fight goat herders" however even t72's were sent to fight in the middle east. and the losses were even more catastrophic!

[@danielmartin7838]

According to Russia, you’re wrong about the T-4 being a basic, rugged tank in the Soviet tradition we’re so accustomed to. The fact that it’s sporting an unmanned turret speaks to a new level of sophistication in Russia’s tank culture. My choice would be the M1-A2. They proved more than a match for Soviet armor everywhere they encountered them, and I think a head-to-head fight with the T-14 would reveal the superiority of the M1-A2

[@start3215]

You're right, because Abrams will win the duel because he's an anti-tank tank. And Russian tanks are tanks supporting attacking infantry, which are designed to destroy pillboxes and other enemy fortifications. And also for deep raids into the enemy's rear in order to destroy rear communications and cut off communications of the enemy army (cavalry raid tactics). The Abrams tank and Russian tanks have different concepts of application on the battlefields. According to the experience of the Russians during World War II, 1 self-propelled gun is attached to a tank company (10 tanks) to fight enemy tanks, since the encounter of enemy tanks on the battlefield is a very rare accident. Therefore, it is incorrect to compare Russian medium tanks weighing 45-50 tons with American Abrams tanks weighing 65-70 tons. The Russians are filling the front with cheap mass-produced tanks to break through enemy defenses all along the front.

[@whiskey_tango_foxtrot__]

All depends on your definitions of "best."

[@usun_politics1033]

They weigh less, so can traverse Ukrainian mud and snow better. They got less crew members. They are simple to produce and service.

[@BenVaserlan]

2:34 "Russian tanks like the T-14 Armata prioritize rugged simplicity" - You are saying the T-14 is simpler than the Abrams. How? How is the T-14 built to the same philosophy as the T-72 and how is it built to a different one?

[@Branderburger42424]

Thats why NATO newer was challenging in Tanks biathlon championship in Russia

[@DenisMalyasov]

The war shows that the experience of the tank crew is important! But mostly an American and Russian, both are only a tinning bank!

[@shantonujhon8786]

if there has english subtitle it will be better..

[@diegomora1294]

The german tiger tank from WW2 was the most feared tank of that time.. ever wondered why ?. Besides it being very well protected, it had elite crew inside, the very best of the best, so combining most advanced tank and elite crew, they had a killing machine

[@cwolf8841]

Funny I thought Germany lost WW2.

[@ClaudeMagicbox]

American tanks are huge bonzos that weight 55-58 tons and are good to do parades, in real war scenarios (happened the same in Desert Storm 1991), they have huge problems actually advancing in sand/mud/snow

[@ImperatorSomnium]

Cheaper

[@mattycakes1161]

Also, a T-14 has never been lost in combat, because it's never seen combat lol

[@nicktozie6685]

Abrams is the tiger of today

[@user-fh9bt7gx8e]

The American tank was created quite a long time ago and reflects the doctrines of that time. It is an extremely expensive and sophisticated machine designed to be used with full advantage on the battlefield. Which proved itself well during the war with Iraq. However, this is not the case if you do not have a complete advantage over your opponent. The main weakness of the American tank is its cost and complexity. America, without conducting any complex military campaigns, hung additional options on its tank, just like shiny balls on a Christmas tree. And each upgrade made the tank more expensive. And more vulnerable. This is absolutely not the tank that you would like to lose in battle. The loss of such a tank will be a disaster for you. Damage to such a tank will require complex repairs in specialized workshops. This tank has a powerful engine, another distinctive feature of which is the unimaginable amount of fuel it consumes to maintain such power. This is a very heavy tank, and in order for it to move, it must consume a lot. The American tank runs on aviation fuel. There is a lot of electronics in the American tank. Do you consider this an advantage? The use of drones has led to the fact that the battlefields are filled with electronic suppression devices. Disabling a drone with such a tool is not an easy task. The drone is small and fast. Disabling Abrams is a much simpler task. How safe is the Abrams for the crew? This tank is armored with depleted uranium. It's not as dangerous as many people think. This can be compared to a long stay on a sunny beach. But this is if the armor is not damaged. When the armor is damaged, uranium releases radioactive dust, and if it gets into you, you will start fighting cancer. Thus, the Abrams can kill its crew, even if its armor was only damaged, not pierced. By the way, Russia does not use depleted uranium in its armor for precisely these reasons. And it seems that no one except Americans uses it. I didn't quite understand how the Abrams weighing 64 tons can be transported better than the Armata weighing ten tons less? By size? Abrams will be almost one and a half times bigger. One of the latest military tactics. "Abrams" is not protected from blows from above. For drones, this is a big and desirable goal. What did the author want to say when talking about soft ground? In the conditions of Ukraine, it is better for Abrams to drive on asphalt. Otherwise, he tries to take a fixed firing position. I must say that this is a well-fortified position deep in the ground.

[@chadgilmore5046]

The opinion on Russian Tanks has done a complete 180 first they were looked on as duds now they are superior.

[@tchek1980]

Russians learned for WWII. T-34 were smaller, easier to repair and more adaptable than Panzers. Panzers were more complex and therefore, when they broke down they were hell to repair. It was a crucial flaw. Germans strategized better, but panicked when the unexpected happened, Russians were trial and error and more adaptable. That's how they won. It seems Russians learned their lesson since then, and russian tanks like T-90 are deliberately smaller than Abrams, more adaptable, easier to repair.

[@cosmincasuta486]

Bravo!

[@angeldomingojr.7538]

The comparison is the ratio destroyed in actual battle..

[@danielbeach4855]

And the Abrams has no coax or CDR's machine-gun? A bit overblown on this close-defense issue.

[@mattycakes1161]

The Armata may actually be accurate though since it uses the same sights and targeting systems as the Leclerc, as Russia gets these from France.

[@jahmah519]

You remember Tonka toys.

[@tonyhindi1741]

Russian tanks = cheaper maintenance and manufacturing costs, effective, and less crew required US tanks = over priced, over tech, high maintenance costs, too heavy, and more crew required

[@venator5]

In my personal opinion. Russians tanks are better in these areas. -Better roof protection against mortal hits and top attacks, -Less personel needed to crew it, out of 12 personel you can man 4 tanks instead of 3 -Access to HE rounds, -Capable of shooting ATGM missiless, -ERA explosive armour, less weight and easy to replace damaged components, -Crews are being intechangeable beetwen russian tank models, Nato tanks, -Reduced ammount of burn injuries by propellant burning. And as sad as it is sounds like pretty much that's it. Since the T-90M has better optics and thermals than the western models they could not brag about that too.

[@sennopatiallen]

army cannot rely on the tank only. it must supported by a strategic ecosystem upon military strategy during the mission

[@douglasroberts6930]

Tanks, no matter what, are only as good as the combined arms they are with.

[@user-gr7dz8vg1d]

The Rus get points for designing tanks suited to their turf. Americans did that and are superior in the guns and the projection of force where armor is suited. It’s no longer about the weapons. Logistics wins wars now. Have the Rus been able to overwhelm the ukrs with Guderian-type envelopements? No. They grind out a battle of artillery and attrition. Their strong suit is that they don’t care about human life and will use up their population without compunction. Drones have also caused big problems for vehicles, ie, tanks? That is the next big challenge along w/ the e-war.

[@clubprojects6923]

The three Western models are, after upgrades, all pushing 70 tons. This limits mobility and can leave them stuck.

[@texaspapa9445]

Drones have made tanks obsolete

[@monkieie]

Even though you won't give a nod to any other countries' tanks it would at least be fair to mention that the British invented Chobham armour.

[@pacificdragon1]

Tanks are just targets waiting to be destroyed on the Modern Battlefield without the following: Air Support, Infantry Support, Intelligence, and a Well Trained Tank Crew.

[@charlesolinger9735]

The problem with the British tanks is they are under powered. The problem with the German tanks they are to complicated. The problem with American tanks they are to big. Problem with Russian tanks...... to many.

[@usun_politics1033]

The last US high intensity conflict was during Korean war.

[@antoniotorcoli5740]

Mostly vice versa

[@alexjeon2180]

Sorry, but you lost all credibility the moment you mentioned the T-14 Armata as a tank to compare against American/western tanks. It's not in production and it's not active ANYWHERE as part of the Russian army's tank brigades (except for parades).

[@IMNODOCTOR]

M1 Abrams will be bad choice fighting in PH terrain. The typical PH bridge can only handle 25-35 tons max and the highways can only handle about 60 tons.

[@deltadaggertm4011]

Same logic with the fighter aircraft technology. Latest variant of M1 Abrams focuses on the edge of beyond visual range warfare. Russian T14 technology is fpr ruggedness, low maintenance time, and close quarter warfare, or you call it a dogfight

[@Lord_of_The_World]

Drone warfare has changed the tank battlefield

[@abbbb5625]

It appears clearly that the Russian tank has a defensive attitude while the US tanks reveal a more aggressive posture. Russia's doctrine is more focused on combined warfare. US tanks had been presented as invincible, that arrogance felt short during Iraq war when Abrams M1 were shot down by an old RPG-7. Now we see abrams being disabled by one T72 shot. Excuses are provided, but the fact remains that relying on the technology prevent usage as the author doe not want its top notch technology being reversed engineered by the adversary. What is good for a tank you cannot use?

[@StraussBR]

T14 doesnt even exist, the russian MBT is the T90

[@boerplaas388]

Every where

[@Mr.Moe...]

This is a hard comparison to do. Its a 40 year old tank with multiple upgrades over the years. Against the newest tank in the Russian fleet. Plus the T-14 hasn't been to battle at this point.

[@steveb890]

The T-14 will NEVER see combat , it was cancelled last year !

[@Mr.Moe...]

@steveb890 Ok stop yelling at me Steven 😆

[@Torsionv6]

Have any Armatas even been deployed?

[@cjackson2931]

All tanks are deadly regardless of age.

[@michaelrothwell8804]

T72s are like the T34s, simple, reliable, and effective. Apparently, the Abrams computer systems crash after the tank gets hit.