M1A2 'Abrams' MBT gets ANOTHER upgrade | M1A2 SEP V4

[@_Matsimus_]

Check out our partnership clothing business! 💥 💣 Attire For Effect💣 💥 www.attireforeffect.com

[@jaredyoung5353]

Awesome vid. Can tanks shoot no in FB targets while they themselves are on the move

[@MRsolidcolor]

that old Abrams looking real good now that the Ukraine war is full blaze. Russia tank are failing hard. and china has similar modules. Abrams is still king

[@dnate697]

It is kind of sad when you ignore me Matt when I've exposed myself to you! I don't mind when the others do it.

[@adspie]

War thunder is a BS game! the game developer which is russians are bias when it comes to their tech tree... since when poland is part of russia?!? why russia tech tree has squadron premium polish leo 2 pl?!?

[@wolverinexo6417]

Upgrades are always good news. We must always be 100 steps ahead.

[@Masada1911]

Kind of wild to think that this thing might actually finish 100 years of service at this rate.

[@thelittlestmig3394]

Up there with 1911, M2, M16/4, C-130, B-52, U-2, T54/55 and AK.

[@P.G13]

Truly a thing of beauties if you ask me

[@ghostmourn_alt]

The year is 42069. American Abrams tanks advance supported by B-52 bombers. Men on the ground with M-14 rifles provide security!

[@gordonlawrence1448]

@@ghostmourn_alt While allies who used to be enemies fly overhead in MIG-21's.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

@@thelittlestmig3394 The MIG-21 ain't far behind.

[@beefgoat80]

My brother told me about how when he was in the Army, based over in Schweinfurt, everyone would gather behind the Abrams while it was running to keep warm in the winter.

[@CCM1199]

at any base that has an Abrams and its cold in the winter you can huddle behind and be nice and hot within 30 seconds. Sleeping on the back deck of the tank in the winter time is oh so nice especially with the back deck keeping you warm.

[@beefgoat80]

@@CCM1199 he was a Bradley driver, 1st Infantry 1/4 cav. Big Red One. It's funny, I come from a military family. My father pressured both me and my little brother to sign up until an IED went off under the driver's seat of my older brother's Bradley and took half an inch off his height. My dad was a fighter jock in the Air Force. And my oldest brother was a sonar operator on boomers. My grandpa was a tail gunner/radio operator on SBD Dauntless when Pearl happened. He got the Navy Cross at Midway.

[@mikewalsh1402]

Yup, most certainly at Graf!

[@teller1290]

Navy Cross at Midway is freakin' E-P-I-C... EPIC and LEGENDARY.

[@ozzy7763]

I was in the back of a 5 ton at Hohenfels after a field exercise so cold and soaked for a week straight. A column of Abrams rode by and blasted us with their exhaust as we passed each other. It was fantastic!

[@cnlbenmc]

General Dynamics designed the Tank to have massive upgrade potential from the beginning; probably even more so than they realised.

[@richardmoore609]

The US rather likes the ability to upgrade and ability to be upgraded is one of the requirements for new vehicles. F-35 was designed with this in mind. It makes sense if you think about it. You can react quicker to new threats if you don't have to redesign and retrain everytime. You also don't have to change your supply line.

[@anthonyshaw9383]

General Dynamics did not design the Abrams. Chrysler Defense did.

[@DevouringKing]

@@anthonyshaw9383 that would explain the good optics 🙂

[@richelle9563]

That Upgradable Concept was so good that Even the Russians Realized how good it was and they Implement in to the T-14 Armata Combat Platform, infact they even step-up the concept and the same chassis can used used on there vehicles like IFV and SPG, T-15 is an Example.

[@richelle9563]

That Upgradable Concept was so good that Even the Russians Realized how good it was and they Implement in to the T-14 Armata Combat Platform, infact they even step-up the concept and the same chassis can used used on there vehicles like IFV and SPG, T-15 is an Example.

[@hihio5]

America : how many upgrades do you want Abrams :yes

[@TR33ZY_CRTM]

Germany: how many upgrades do you want? Leopard 2: *ja* Russia: how many upgrades do you want? T-64: *Da*

[@lgnfve]

@@TR33ZY_CRTM T-90: where do you want to put the ammo magazine ? hmmmm, over the fuel tank ?

[@jacobcones2803]

Mhhmmmm t72 would like to have a word

[@Volker109]

@@lgnfve turret go boom

[@schwabbel_di_babble3253]

This was not a question, it was a statement

[@lordtazzman3140]

The Abrams gets more notice than Challenger because of the formers longevity, numbers produced, and more combat experience to this point.

[@lgnfve]

combat experience is the big one. people online argue about paper info. , but until you have seen it do it's job, you just dont get it.

[@le_floofy_sniper_ducko]

doesnt help the very small numbers Chally 3 being ordered compared the most likely number of abrams being upgraded being much more than that

[@spartanx9293]

Also doesn't suffer from an incredibly low Budget

[@moksq42]

Chally is shite!

[@fullsalvo2483]

@@le_floofy_sniper_ducko the small numbers is the biggest factor i think as well.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

Quite some time ago an American bigwig in the USAF said "the only thing more expensive than having the best Airforce in the world is having the second best". I'm guessing the same is true of tanks.

[@soonerfrac4611]

And he would know, the USAF has less aircraft than our Navy. SMH. But total boats our Army has more than the Navy, go figure.

[@piscessoedroen]

@@soonerfrac4611 let me guess. The army has less armored vehicles than the airforce?

[@antred11]

@@piscessoedroen Since the US Navy sort of has its own army (which, in turn, has its own air force), who knows? :D

[@mmiller4569]

@@soonerfrac4611 I believe you are incorrect in that statement. The USAF has about 50% more planes than the Navy.

[@deadeyecpt.7765]

@@antred11 so you telling me your army has branches and each branch has an army?

[@christianpethukov8155]

Will this upgrade include WiFi and a microwave? Silliness aside, the music was a good fit with the gunnery footage. Really dug this content, thank you!

[@LeMeowAu]

The British are considering the m1a2 Sep v5 to replace their challengers if it includes tea kettles and fin stabilised hesh

[@sorryociffer]

No, but it IS getting BTLE v5.2 so you can stream “Flight of the Valkyrie’s” as you fire 120mm rounds of whoop ass….

[@christianpethukov8155]

@@sorryociffer That will work too...perhaps a huge playlist of death metal too??

[@christianpethukov8155]

@@LeMeowAu HESH....so classic!

[@dwyderdom]

@@LeMeowAu sealed tea bag compartment with sliding door to prevent it's destruction upon penetration of the tank's armor

[@DirtyMikeandTheBoys69]

If the M1 needed replacing or was obsolete, the Army would have already replaced it. It's perfectly capable of doing it's job and these new upgrades continue to keep her relevant.

[@atinofspam3433]

It’s the same with every other tank. Leopards and Challengers have gone through a lot of upgrades because they too aren’t obsolete. And even russia and china are still using old soviet tanks because they work. Tanks don’t need to be replaced every 20 years if they are perfectly adequate.

[@shatteredstar2149]

V4 will be the last upgrade to the Abrams

[@LoisoPondohva]

@@shatteredstar2149 the original plan was for the v2 to be the last one.

[@Proletariat12]

Except it is getting replaced. They are picking the new MBT right now, finishing designs. They are ALSO picking a light tank (but they don't like calling it a light tank, it's just a battalion level infantry support vehicle with a 105mm gun on a turret, with armor).

[@DirtyMikeandTheBoys69]

@@Proletariat12 actually, they aren't. The M1A2C or SepV3 is the only model being designed openly according to the DoD. They wouldn't be upgrading all previous models to the 3-standard if they were just going to toss them aside for a newer model. The only tank currently being designed is a light tank.

[@_Matsimus_]

We all love the Abrams! But do we think this is just more smoke and mirrors upgrades that wont go into full effect on all tanks or is V4 truly going to be the modern tank of USA and here to stay on the entire fleet? Let me know what you think! Have an amazing day!

[@My3lilmonsters]

Hey I'm a little lost, is the v4 getting a armament getting a change? Or still the 120?

[@nriqueog]

@@My3lilmonsters Still the 120mm, there seems to be no plans to upgrade the main weapon it's getting a new round that will do the job of 4 types in one shell. I'm surprised they're still keeping the main engine power pack. I would have thought bye now they would have moved on to a diesel engine.

[@Trve_Kvlt]

@@nriqueog There are (or were) plans to use the Rh-120 L/55 (Abrams uses the L/44). Maybe we'll eventually see the up-gunned M1A3, with Rheinmetall's Rh-130 (130mm) or the 140mm gun the French tested on the Leclerc.

[@raptor4916]

The turbine is fine especially with the aux power pack and simplifies logistics

[@joshuadelasalle8581]

I have someone close to me that is doing a upgrade to the Abrams right now. It's freaking awesome to hear about it. And should make a difference

[@Kaiserland111]

It's not surprising that Abrams updates are so widely followed. There are more of them than most other current tanks, they are one of the few current tanks that have been through real combat, and they belong to the most powerful nation in the world and thus are the standard against which other nations are compared. It doesn't hurt that all info on them is also in English, whereas much info about the Russian and Chinese tanks is in those native languages and thus less accessible to the layperson.

[@yoda5565]

The "mystique" around the M1 is simple. It's an M1. The whole "Abrams" design and development process started with a blank sheet of paper. It does not look like a Sherman that morphed into a Pershing, then into a M48 that morphed into an M60. The M1 was amazing when first fielded in the early 1980's. Those of us who were lucky enough to get it at the "Gap" showed it off on almost a daily basis to the East Germans. Yes, we took them right up to the fence (gun tubes facing west). The sterling performance of the tank in battle in the middle east solidified the legend. It's prowess today is not only it's upgradeability but it's numbers. Most European armies are "Country club" armies at best. While their lovely Leo's and chinsed Challengers are nifty; they are not deployed in the numbers that the M1 is.

[@KleinerGrenadier]

Can u maybe like simp harder? I bet u would use the abrams barrel as a fleshlight cuz its so perfect right???? Not tryina hate but this is layed on so thick its crazy

[@willv2746]

@@KleinerGrenadier it does feel quite good ;)

[@theotherfoot129]

@@KleinerGrenadier I think his point is that there have been over: 10,400 Abrams tanks built 3600 Leopard 2s and less than 500 Challenger 2s.

[@Stinger913]

Tbf the T-72s in Mid East weren’t the most advanced T-72s or Russian tanks available nor were their crews well trained. So it’s not a case study one can use to say Abrams is better than modern Russian designs. That can only be tested one way, and I’d rather no one test it at all. It did solidify a mythology, however.

[@black10872]

@@KleinerGrenadier Well... the guy said he was one of the first tankers to use the Abrams on the Fulda Gap. Soooo.

[@cascadianrangers728]

Mmm. Love the Abrams. Felt very, very confident essentially marching along side one, and the Abrams will always literally gives me warm memories; no matter how cold it got, was always nice and toasty warm behind an Abrams. And no disgusting, greasy exhaust, it's like standing in front of a hair dryer on full blast. This prarucilar aspect went largely unappreciated in Iraq. Plus, if you get lonely or tied, there is a phone in a box on the back of the tank, it's there so you can be clearly heard when you want to complain to the crew about the weather, a veggie omelette you got stuck with, or whatever is bothering you and on your mind, they love hear it

[@ghostmourn_alt]

I think its really cool that the new AMP round will allow the commander to always keep a useful round in the tube. A round thats able to deal with any situation. It seems like a tough task to know which round to have in the tube with 5 different types available and making the wrong call could put the tank at a disadvantage

[@Followme556]

MPAT was already supposed to do that.

[@ab5olut3zero95]

We already have that. Punchin a hole with whatever the hell’s in the tube right now is more useful that waiting the 10-15 seconds to change rounds. Just because sabot doesn’t go boom against PCs, doesn’t mean they survived the engagement.

[@CCM1199]

@@Followme556 MPAT had 2 features...Air and ground. It was stored in ground mode and if you needed it to be in air mode, you would toggle the nose cone on the round before throwing it in the breech

[@Followme556]

@@CCM1199 MPAT was designed so that a tank could have one do it all round loaded in the gun that was equally adept at dealing with fortifications, PCs, soft skinned vehicles and tanks.

[@CCM1199]

@@Followme556 I know. I was on the Arbrams for 18 years. However having the round issue to us was nonexistent. I was only issued that round in combat. Same with the OR round. Canister rounds in itself was expensive to fire and caused extensive damage. The AMP round is supposed to do the same thing as the previous that are being replace and somehow I don't see that being possible. This is the army's way of being lazy.

[@00tree]

I think one of the main reasons the Abrams get so much love is because it was the beginning of a new era of MBTs. I totally revolutionized the way tanks were designed in a lot of way so people get very excited to see what the next rendition of the tank will be.

[@YorktownUSA]

The Abrams truly is an icon. It will be sad when it's retired one day, but that day is coming.

[@scottbaykian3032]

Sad it will be.. but regardless we will get new toys to play with including a bigger and beefier tank

[@MikoyanGurevichMiG21]

That day is when we are in our old age homes and retire ourselves.

[@LAV-III]

I’ll probably be dead when it’s retired lol

[@sunshineskystar]

you will probably never feel sad about it because you will be already dead by the time that happens.

[@georgiabowhunter]

I’m an old M1A1 Dino tanker. These new Jedi M1A2 tankers have it made. I’d love to go shoot a gunnery in an M1A2 V4. The M1 series is the longest running most battle proven tank in history and it’s still going strong.

[@Tuhoeterra]

Centurion would like a word sir

[@georgiabowhunter]

@@Tuhoeterra So would the T-55, T-62, T-72. I said longest running and battle proven. Not just the oldest target on the battle field.

[@SgtBones]

back in my day it was just an M1, really miss the old 105mm ;) vacumnn loading and having all that brass ;)

[@twinblade02]

The T-64, T-72, T-80, Centurion, Challengers 1 and 2, and all their variants would like to say hello. Combat history - I'll give you that. inb4 these capitalist pigs come and say Russian tanks are junk - let me tell you that the US is the only nation in the world that has used their MBTs to do what they were designed to do - fight enemy armour and infantry at long ranges most of the time, which would explain why they have a stellar record.

[@herbet3011]

@@twinblade02 Why don't you look at his reply to Tuhoeterra

[@K_GHOST225]

Worth keeping in mind that even on the same "variant" of the Abrams there will be changes. The original SEPV2 did not have the same ERA package, Remote weapons stations, electronics, turret drives, and.. certainly didn't have a hard kill APS. The current SEPV2's have all received these upgrades and some have even received add-on turret armor. It's still "SEPV2". By the way, the APS is a standalone system and needs no integration into the current systems on the tank. It's an add-on and can be put on any M1A2 model.

[@matheuscerqueira7952]

Can the APS be knocked out by mortar fire? Or HMG fire? This always seemed as a weak spot to me, would like to know more

[@K_GHOST225]

@@matheuscerqueira7952 You have bigger issues if you're opening up on a tank company with a HMG or attempting to with a Mortar. The Trophy system has a 100% success rate at stopping chemical warheads on merkavas since 2014.

[@CCM1199]

The original SEPv2's had the tall CROWS weapon system. They had to make a smaller version of the CROWS so that the commander would see over the CROWS if the weapon system ever went down. The current SEPv2's had to have some things upgraded in the vehicle to meet the APS mounting to the tank. the SEPv2s did get a Warlock system and Duke system (when deployed). Always had a turret drive system and for the SEPv2' it did have a Remote weapons system. youre talking about the SEPv1's and early SEPv2's with the Flex .50 Cal mount (deployed to OIF I with SEPv2's). later SEPv2's came out with the CROWS. I know this because I went through every NETT training that had to the with the Abrams from the A2 to the SEPv2's last NETT training was 2009 on Kelley Hill Fort Benning.

[@K_GHOST225]

@@CCM1199 Like, sure, man. We got the low profile crows in 2019 and our SEPV2s had the ol' standard manual mount before that. No other crows was mounted for us.

[@dee-jay45]

The Abrams gets attention because everyone expects the US MBT to be at the cutting edge of tech/tank technology. In a way, the Abrams is a trend setter that other countries try and follow. And unlike the Russians, who do seem more ambitious, the Abrams development isn't nearly as resource limited.

[@vladraduandrei5227]

yes ruskies and their super duper t14 armata that doesn t exist

[@nicolbolas8758]

russian tanks burn like matches telling you as UA guy :D

[@waffledoodle5867]

The Russians haven't designed a new (real) tank in a good 40 years (the T-90 is just an upgraded T-72). Their upgrades are also lackluster and get implemented so slowly they're last generation by the time they become streamlined. They aren't ambitious at all. I would call the Japanese, Israelis, and Koreans more ambitious regarding their tank design.

[@waffledoodle5867]

@@Mal101M No. A proper APS can take out a Javelin, which the Russians don't have. Newer Western and Eastern (not Chinese) designs do. Penetration on a Russian tank is also near-deadly for the crew, since the jack-in-the-box design causes the turret to become the next space shuttle. Russian tanks are just kinda shit.

[@gavinoreilly1501]

You sure about that? What APS are you talking about and I’d like to see your source.

[@kirbytucker2549]

When the Abrams finally gets replaced it will probably weight 85tons with all its upgrades

[@alfalegionnaire3451]

*95 with the TUSK 814 package

[@Blox117]

only 40 tons when you remove all the american crewmembers

[@Venator631]

I'm betting the abrams will be 100+ tons before it's finally relpaced.

[@thedecisiveraindrop4868]

@@Blox117 so the Abrams weighs less than an Armata or T-90? Freedomium clearly is the lightest, most durable material in the world.

[@allangibson2408]

The latest upgrades are about reducing weight - starting with removing two tons of copper wiring (which is being replaced with inherently EMP proof optical fibre).

[@MberEnder]

The reason we all get so excited about upgrades for the Abrams is because the Abrams is fricking awesome.

[@CobraDBlade]

With all these upgrade packages, it just makes me wonder when it stops becoming a M1A2 SEP Vxx upgrade and turns into a M1Ax tank.

[@Chopstorm.]

When it's basically rebuilt from the ground up like the M1 to the M1A1, or M1A1 to M1A2.

[@j.trades9691]

The Abrams of Theseus.

[@Cragified]

M1 was designed from the beginning with PPI (Planned Product Improvement) by Chrysler Defense. It's paid out very well. It's a solid chassis that wears a 'suit' of armor package and equipment. It would even be possible to change the running gear to hydrostatic if the budget would be spent on it. And the U.S. has THOUSANDS of original M1 hulls to upgrade/replace loses with.

[@BadgerBadgerBadger28]

So glad you’re continuing to make content Matt Just get it too is when you can

[@StabbinJoeScarborough]

I served on the M1A1c - M1A1SA , shot a couple ranges in this video , I had a long carrer and a great time on tanks , in short , I had a blast Thanks Matt

[@kathrynck]

Glad to see they're going with V4. There was some talk not long ago of moving on to a new tank design. But honestly the Abrams is so modular and upgrade friendly, that I don't think there is any reason to create a clean-slate design until there is a compelling technological reason to do so. And there isn't one currently. A major new development in propulsion, armament, or materials tech could necessitate a new clean slate design. But for now, just upgrade existing systems.

[@willv2746]

They are moving on to a new design, but it’ll still be another decade (and probably a couple of years before contracting is announced). However, it’s likely to be very different leaving a place for the M1 - also hint the Sep 4 is being used as a test bed for a lot of features being currently considered for the next gen tank

[@danielestrella3896]

My best guess is that it comes from being one of the most iconic MBTs for the everyday person. Large, blocky turret cheeks with the long Bustle racks, lateral smoke dischargers and the wedged UFP make it easily recognizable. Couple this with it basically being the poster child of the gulf war and boom. You have an iconic machine that critics want too look for flaws in, and one that enthusiasts will want to see if it keeps up its reputation. I mean these things wiped the floor with russian T-72s with a really impressive kill ratio. Three specific stories come to mind when I think of this tank: the one where a stuck tank was engaged by 2 or 3 T-72s only for their shots to bounce off and for them to be destroyed in turn, the one where a disabled Abrams was shot at by other Abrams in an attempt to scuttle it only for the sight alignment to be off after they inspected it, and the battle of 73 easting where a spearhead of Abrams and Bradley's blitzed some dug in T-72s and BMPs. It has a reputation, it's all over the media, stories of it in action are plentiful, accessible and downright legendary to people who have no background in the subject of Armored combat. In comparison, the Leopard 2 doesn't have a major conflict where it steamrolled enemy armor, if anything recent conflicts have seen it being used improperly and as a result, being destroyed. The Challenger wasn't given as much media attention despite them being present in the gulf war(the only iconic story of them I can think of are the longest tank kills, otherwise most people who know nothing of the tank see it as big, slow, heavy and with only a few of them running around.

[@stuarthamilton5112]

I think a lot of the mystique surrounding the Abrams goes back to the 1991 Gulf War. Watching these things charge across open desert, firing at enemy tanks, scoring first shot kills, and over taking Iraqi positions without so much as stopping for breath demonstrated to a Post World War 2 world what modern armored warfare is all about. It was reminiscent of the old German Blitzkrieg, except refined by decades of training and technological refinement. It struck a chord and people remember it. And then there is its engine. It stands alone as the only main battle tank (to my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong) powered by a gas turbine engine, the sound is entirely unique. There is no revving, throaty rumble, no plume of exhaust, just a loud whine and the shimmer of hot transparent exhaust. Its the kind of thing that reminds you that you won't see exhaust plumes from a stationary group of Abrams, and compared to other tanks they are quiet. I am also always surprised with how nimble this tank is. It isn't the fastest by a long shot, or the most fuel efficient (its probably the least in fact), but it shift its 70+ ton bulk very gracefully. You watch Russian tanks and they bounce all over the place. When they want to move you can see that gearbox engaging, and you hear the engine rev up. The Abrams does none of that. It just. Moves. Smoothly, almost like it hovers over the ground. Its eerie to watch if you're a tank guy. It weighs over 70 tons, a whole 30% heavier than a T-90, and it dances with that engine and transmission.

[@varmint87]

Can we just call it M1A3 now. Damn they love those acronyms.

[@Chopstorm.]

When it has a significant new upgrade, like a new cannon, I'm sure it will become the A3.

[@thedecisiveraindrop4868]

Probably when the upgrade requires it to be a completely different assembly will we see a name change, like what Chompstorm said, since usually the previous radical changes were massive, such as new hulls, new turret faces and even extended turrets, not to mention the gun change. All of the SEP changes as far as I know are merely addons that can be applied on the field, that don’t require a redesigned turret to accommodate those changes.

[@haydendill6288]

Got to feel bad for them British War Thunder players having the Challenger prevented from correction due to policy.

[@TheOriginalJAX]

Tbh i don't and as a fellow brit I don't take to kindly to them making these submissions, Gaijin are a Russian company so in turn this is basically spoon feeding intel to the enemy. I don't see why these people should be not arrested for sedition and then charged.

[@TR33ZY_CRTM]

But... We need _sekrit dokumints_ to make Challenger 2 better!

[@jakeogroton]

@@TheOriginalJAX I can guarantee the Russian government already had that information especially if it was just sitting in a manual that any tank commander has

[@TheOriginalJAX]

@@jakeogroton I get what i am saying is harsh but the reality is intelligence is a tricky game and you never know until it's confirmed with intel so it better to just never assume. that's how more people die that didn't need too. Iv been on warships and nuclear submarines and seen some other "things" over 10 years ago now and there is still stuff that i can't talk about even now still, that I'm pretty certain our potential enemies are still not aware of the particulars of. It's not like I'm expecting anything of anyone else that Im not holding myself too at the end of the day.

[@hazardous458]

@@TheOriginalJAX I mean I doubt russia cares that much about that mantlet armor considering the document kinda proves mantlet armor is very weak on the challenger.

[@Deathbomb9]

Gotta be honest, that opening cutscene makes the Abrams look and seem exactly like the monster of war it is revered as. Best job I ever had. As for the Abrams, I think we are all excited about it because it's so iconic. Show a silhouette of it to any armor enthusiast or armored division soldier and they automatically know it. The same cant be said for most tanks from other countries. It may take a bit of looking and knowing that tank to get it instantly. As for these changes, you're tight with it not really being a visual thing but theres some very smart reasoning to that. If you cant tell if it's an old SEP V2 or if it's the latest and greatest with all the bells and whistles you're more likely to assume it's the latest and greatest. The upgrades are enough to warrant an minor nomenclature change for that package. They did the same with the M1 with it having many subvariants to its name. I'm pretty sure the tanks from the US Marines will either be mothballed or sent to NG and reserve units to bolster numbers after refitting and then ones coming out of those units for refit might be getting the full upgrade suite to be put into active units. If I had to make a call on the idea of putting wired guided antitank missiles on the Abrams I'd put my money on it not happening for many more years. There isnt much of a need for it at the moment and that role is filled through the combined arms doctrine currently being used and streamlined in the US military. There are a lot of upgrades that happen over the course of a year or more and these tend to be field tested in regular active units and they get feedback from the soldiers about them and then determine where to go from there. The improvements arent necessarily like all this stuff is only on that one variant and the others are still using yesterday's variant. When they reach a point where enough has improved or changed, you get a new designation.

[@wacojones8062]

I remember as a 19D4H Cav Scout instructor laying on the turret roof looking inside on of the first test article M1 at Fort Knox. Whispering Death on the Range roads as our diesels on the M113A1 were so loud we could not hear the M1s around the bends in the tank trails and when we did here something it was rocks popping in the rear sprockets.

[@--Dani]

Love watching those beautiful beasts sling metal down range, M1A2 seems timeless.

[@robertdonnell8114]

I tanked for the US Army from 88 to 06, my view is that the US Army is pretty good at improving existing systems. Totally shite at new systems. Upgrades are going to be needed to the Abrams until it's replacement in 2079.

[@The_ZeroLine]

Predictable anger when the news reports about the unit cost and development costs as well as teething problems for new platforms like the F35 gives that impression. But when adjusted for inflations, past platforms were usually as or even more expensive. As long as the platform is going to be used for many decades, it is usually makes sense to start new ones. However, unlike an airframe, the basic tank chassis isn’t going to be holding back progress and new capabilities much at all. So, there’s no reason we should be designing new tanks from scratch unless they cannot accommodate major tech advances. I am sure at some point in the near future, material sciences are going to require a whole new platform for be created.

[@gaz0463]

I served in the 7th Armoured Brigade with its Challenger 2. I’m out of touch now but hear there’s possibly an upgrade or new Challenger 3. I hope they change the main barrel from rifled to smooth bore. The rifled barrel limited the ordinance we could use or specialised ordinance, at great expense, had to be made. If we made a smooth bore that was able to utilise NATO and American ordinance it would make for a much more flexible and deadly tank with cheaper ordinance.

[@Yung_pindakaas]

they did! one of the main selling points for the challenger 3 is a new turret with a new L/55 120mm smoothbore gun. Which is the same gun currently used by the Leopard 2A7, and a longer barreled version of the L44 used by the Abrams.

[@thomasw695]

There is an aps for the tanks aswell as upgrades the the engine

[@jessefarley4609]

Is supposed to be smooth but ive heard rumors of the 130mm that Germany is gonna use

[@redmustangredmustang]

The thing with the Abrams like many of the early 80's military equipment like the Bradley, Apache, A-10, F-16, etc is that it is still relevant in modern battlefields 40 years later. The Abrams was specifically designed to fight the Soviets in eastern Europe in case of a battle. Instead it has been morphed into many situations like Desert Storm, or providing defense in South Korea, or used in urban areas in Iraq. The Abrams has just adapted into putting on any reactive armor, or using TUSKS in urban areas. It just keeps going and going. That's the intriguing part with these old equipment that no matter how they tried to be retired and replaced they still find a way to stay on the battlefield and still perform well.

[@texasabbott]

They will get fed up with the next long-winded "M1A2E SEP V5 Block III" designation and just name it the M1A3.

[@thejetace42]

Bro the us is planning to make a sep v5 abrams tank

[@jamesdowell5268]

I think Abrams gets undue attention because of its legendary performance during the gulf war, even though I'm a grown man and that happened before I was born.

[@CCM1199]

Tanks in the Video from order: 2:11 M1A1SA 2:15 M1A2SEPv2 (CROWS stowed) 2:25, 2:42 M1A2SEPv2 (with Flex .50 Cal Mount) Maneuvering around the Twilight Pond Area, Kelley Hill Fort Benning, GA. Gunnery Conducted at the DMPRC (Digital Multi Purpose Range Complex) Fort Benning, GA.

[@lancefox8232]

I think we follow the Abrams so much because we are surprised its still in service as the primary US tank. We've seen lots of other tanks from different nations come and go but the Abrams is still hanging in there. Of course as we've seen with the Armata you can build a new tank but that's a lot of money to replace all your other tanks and that bill gets large quickly. US has one tank a single platform to base your upgrades. Russia and China have more but upgrading would be a struggle with all the variants not worth it.

[@aidan11162]

The hull hasn’t reached the limit of its upgradability yet.

[@spartanx9293]

I mean the Challenger has been in service for almost as long as the Abrams as has the leopard 2

[@MikoyanGurevichMiG21]

In all honesty, the Russians have learnt their lesson and seeing the T-72B3 and T-90M, they are also sticking to modernizing the existing inventory rather than churning out more Armatas. The post 2014 sanctions after the gamer moments in Donbass crippling the spending on military programs is another matter.

[@TheTrueAdept]

Surprisingly enough, the Abrams is surprisingly future-proofed and backed by physics as an optimum design. There is a good reason that the hull is going to be done forever.

[@HingerlAlois]

@@spartanx9293 The Challenger 2 entered service in 1998. The M1 Abrams in 1980 and the Leopard 2 in 1979. The Leclerc in 1993 and the Ariete in 1995.

[@armorguy1108]

Why do I get excited about Abrams upgrades? I started my US Army career on the IP-M1 (Improved Performance M1) with the 105mm gun and (to us) amazing computers. When I went to OSUT and, 3 years later, to AOB, we knew we were so much ahead of M-60 (and the occasional National Guard M48A5) tanks...not to mention the opposition tanks. Desert Storm sort of proved that out, right?...but I digress. I've watched those same hulls and turrets get upgrade after upgrade and seeing the tank I love change to continue to be effective makes me (for many reasons) very happy. The platform was designed for exactly what we are seeing. It's modularity (is that a real word? I guess it is!) means that armor packages, gun packages, comms packages, etc. can be changed out as needed without major architectural changes to the entire platform. No disrespect to Challenger, Leopard, or any of the other great platforms....but my heart belongs to Abrams.

[@Blox117]

aren't tanks a waste these days? tanks are only useful at... killing other tanks. you can just have any infantry hide from a tank, and give them anti tank weaponry or use the resources and divert it to aircraft and air to surface missiles. you can also cut off the supply lines and tanks become useless. seems like a massive waste of money

[@armorguy1108]

@@Blox117 Ummm. No. Tanks kill *everything*. Are they invulnerable? No, absolutely not....but if the enemy has them and you do not you will be conquered. If this wasn't true do you think the US and it's peer/near-peer potential adversaries would be investing in them so much? Tanks are not perfect...but being without them is suicide. Hopefully we will not see this play out in Ukraine.

[@Blox117]

@@armorguy1108 sure if everything includes other tanks and that's about it

[@leflavius_nl5370]

Hey Matt! Welcome back and thanks for the video.

[@shadowywarrior]

I"m excited the M1A2 abrams or rather the Abrams getting upgrades, because of how iconic the Abrams is. Its is the most recognizable modern MBT even though it may not be the most exported. It combat proven with a close combat record with troops. And to see it extend its life is like how the A-10 is.

[@ssgusa]

GARRYOWEN! Thank you for this video!! I hope we soon see the Block 3 version with autoloader and 140mm main gun. I spent 4 years of my US Army career as a 19K on the M1A1. I was lucky to serve at every position in the crew. Then later I was a tank commander instructor at Fort Knox (1-81AR). Now I’m a TWAT, Tanker Without A Tank. I miss this beast too much.

[@Gozza71]

It was announced the other day that Australia is getting 75 m1a2 sep3 as well as supporting vehicles like bridge layers recovery vehicles as well as mine-clearing m1's. Nice upgrade for the Australian Army from the remanufactured m1a2's

[@alanbstard4]

The US is going to Sep4. Won't be long before these Sep3s are obselete

[@xavierng1951]

Another amazing thing about the Abrams chassis is that tanks that get sent back to GD for upgrade or refurbishment usually need very little work to get them back to as-new condition. Usually their turbine engines get refurbished or replaced, while the entire tank chassis get stripped, welded in small places or just inspected and sent back to painting and then reassembly. Even the most damaged tanks can be put back into service relatively quickly. The toughness of the chassis is a testament to the fact they designed the tank to fight WW3 and prevail. Personally though, I think the turret is reaching its limit of upgradeability, and soon they may need a new turret with all the upgraded systems better integrated into it, such as the Trophy system.

[@paullakowski2509]

Then the conclusion has to be..."why fix it if it aint broken." it worked so far so they must be doing something right. When you see countries desperately building newer models all the time it means their tanks are crap. Stay with the tryed and true contentious upgrades...see what is cost effective and what is not. I'd rather see more money invested exploring BRADLEY upgrades or Paladin + MRLS upgrades. Is there a mechanized flak AFV on the horizon? 😁

[@gareththompson2708]

I am amazed at how long the Abrams has been able to remain on the cutting edge (along with its NATO contemporaries like the Leo2 and Leclerc). I assume that eventually we will reach the end of its practical upgradeability and be forced to finally develop and adopt a brand new MBT, ushering in a 4th generation of MBTs. But that is taking longer than I ever would have thought. I keep thinking that each upgrade to the Abrams will be the last, and I keep being proven wrong. Will the M1A2 SEPv4 be the final variant of the Abrams? Or will there be an M1A2 SEPv5 or an M1A3?

[@Blox117]

because tank development is practically non existent. theres no real tank warfare anymore

[@gareththompson2708]

@@Blox117 Mainly because there mostly isn't any warfare anymore. If two countries were to actually go to war with each other tanks would be as important as ever. Unless it's the US and China, since that will be almost entirely an air/naval war, with perhaps a few amphibious invasions of small islands where heavy equipment will be hard to deploy (tanks will become more important if China manages to launch an invasion of the main island of Taiwan, but that would require gaining air and naval superiority first). But if two countries ever engage in a ground war with each other again then tanks will be as important as ever. If Russia ever gets around to invading Ukraine tanks will be massively important. If anything current developments will make tanks even more dominant. The proliferation of APS means that anti-tank weapons and tactics will have a lot of adapting to do in order to remain effective in the coming decades.

[@thesaddestdude3575]

@@gareththompson2708 That is if we don't all die in thermonuclear war within hours.

[@gareththompson2708]

@@thesaddestdude3575 I see no realistic chance of anyone using nukes on each other. Even Russia, which probably has the loosest nuclear doctrine, would only use nukes if they were actually invaded. Both China and the US would only use nukes if they were nuked by someone else first. And in any case, today there aren't nearly as many nukes in the world as there were at the height of the Cold War. So we wouldn't ALL be killed. kzbin.info/www/bejne/boOroGCZbrGjb5o

[@kolinmartz]

Ironically the one of the most expensive system in the US Army is the perfect template for the US as to how to properly do upgrade and modernization programs. These packages build upon the last iteration. They’re stackable. If and when the army gets more funding or major conflict erupts, units that aren’t up to the latest version can be upgraded quickly to the most current standard no matter what upgrade package they’re currently on. An M1A2SEPv2 or v3 or v1 or even the baseline A2, can all be brought up to the v4 standard by putting them on the same assembly line but just dropped on different stages of it.

[@treadheadpete4770]

Tanks are badass. When they get upgraded, making them even more badass, we get excited! Pretty simple really.

[@tankiller9638]

I think part of the reason the Challenger 2(and 3) don't get the press coverage as the Abrams doesn't come down to it being an American tank, rather I think it's similar to the T-72...aka it gets press when a new version releases cause everyone has for some reason written off older tank designs considering them largely obsolete so it's more surprising to see these platforms get substantial upgrades. The Abrams was made to be a long term solution to our MBT issue, this shows well as the Abrams was designed to be upgradeable so we could continue to use it well into the future...same thing the Germans did with the Leopard 2.

[@kaptainkrafter4130]

I swear we're gonna get an M1A2 SEP V23 which just turns the Abrams into a Camper Van with armor and guns before we get the M1A3

[@Jknight416]

I respect the fact that much of the Abrams' capabilities and upgrades. Such as how the the details of the M1 Abram's chobham armor, which is solely responsible for protecting the tank's crew, still remains a secret even to this day.

[@MikoyanGurevichMiG21]

The Abrams, the Apache, the Humvee and the F-16.Four icons of the American military that are hard to forget for my generation. (dumbass typed it 3)

[@aaronseet2738]

Super carriers are difficult to sail by unnoticed.

[@jeroenwubbels7824]

That's four........

[@paulleader4]

That's 4 mate

[@HO-bndk]

M-60, Huey, Jeep, F-105... So I'm a bit older...

[@rreno496]

I grew up at Fort Hood and remember in the early to mid 80's when the Abrams and Apache showed up. Some folks had some bumper stickers showing a little Russian guy running while his helmet fell off and he was tossing his AK to the side. The caption said "AH64 Apache, the Army's newest attack helicopter, don't bother to run, you'll just die tired". Life sure seemed simpler when us and the Russians were so busy trying to bully each other we didn't have time to be bothered with the nonsense we all deal with today.

[@kolinmartz]

The best thing about these packages is that they build upon the last version. You can stack them. And when the US army gets the funding or a major conflict erupts, units that aren’t up to the latest version can be upgraded quickly no matter what level they’re on. It doesn’t matter if the unit is on the v2 or v3 or even the baseline a2, they can all be brought up to the v4 standard by putting them on the same assembly line.

[@mcnuffin1208]

Isn't this thing approaching maximum weight for its chassis? This thing is absolutely massive

[@henrycooper3431]

Believe it or not The Abrams is actually abit heavier than the Leopard and INCREDIBLY lighter than the British Challenger 2 Pulling from wiki: M1A2 SepV3: 73.6 short tons (66.8 tons) Leopard 2A7: 73.3 short tons (66.5 tons) Challenger 2: 82.7 short tons (75 tons) (this is using the combat ready state with armor addon because using a non added-armor to compare with the Abrams using ERA is unfair) The Challenger 2 (addon armor) is much much bigger and heavier compare to M1A2 SepV3 Abrams Even the non armor addon is still heavier than a standard M1 and M1A1 and only slightly lighter than M1A2 SepV2

[@justsomedude7583]

Think it's your best intro montage to date. Great track+ footage pairing.

[@canadianwaffenwaffle2976]

"the M1A2 is getting another upgrade again!!!! :D" the mobility: i dont feel so good...

[@Chopstorm.]

It may actually improve. Think about the old copper wiring being replaced with fiber optics, resulting in several tons being shaved off of the tank.

[@shaider1982]

Get rid of the speed governor?

[@_np7]

Thanks for keeping us updated! 🇩🇪🇨🇦🇺🇸

[@dwwolf4636]

The one thing I keep missing is a modern lighter and more fuel efficient turbine. The one they have now is about 40 years old.

[@rossbabcock2974]

I think the M1 has gone the distance is because for the first time in American armor design, the did it RIGHT out of the box! It's not being 'fixed', just more capabilities. All tanks have their 'warts' and 'halos'; play on the strengths!

[@spamuraigranatabru1149]

I mean. I would upgrade and buy more if I had the budget.

[@mynameisntjeff906]

It amazes me how much info I've learned since I became a crewman is available to the general public

[@PenDragonsPig]

Would that upgrade include a lick of new paint? And to afford any upgrade they’ll save money getting parts off the scrapper USMC units.

[@heavydutyrepair64]

All of the tanks the marine corps had were returned to the department of the ARMY

[@popeofpain6904]

I guess the lore in Generals is becoming real everyday. Abrams gets another upgrade until they renamed it and called it the M1A4 Paladin.

[@BinkyTheElf1]

Old technology, as with the Bradley. The military industrial complex sure loves a stable income.

[@TheTeodorsoldierabvb]

Bingo. That's why the US military always brags about its budget - its enormous, enough to finance a much bigger, more capable army... if someone wasn't greedy. If EVERYONE wasn't rgeedy.

[@Robert66734]

A remote weaponstation for the commander is an absolute must these days. Especially for urban warfare it is suicide for a commander to stick his head out of the turret. An upgrade without a RWS is unthinkable.

[@rreno496]

CROWS fits damned near everything so when/if they think it's needed you can bet it'll be there, probably with a MK19 because nothing says "F*CK YOU" like an automatic grenade launcher.

[@andyfriederichsen]

People get excited about our military upgrading its Abrams tanks is because it's such a cool armored fighting vehicle. It has a well-deserved and nearly legendary reputation as being one of the best main battle tanks in the world, has had a very long service history compared to other American tanks, and is a very iconic military vehicle. It's kind of like how we all love the A-10 Thunderbolt II, although the A-10 has definitely become outdated and should have been replaced a decade ago.

[@agggrgrg2419]

I'm confused to how you think the a-10 has become outdated?

[@andyfriederichsen]

​@@agggrgrg2419 You can't seriously be asking that.

[@M16_Akula-III]

@@agggrgrg2419 Considering SAM's are very advanced now, You don't really want to use it on a Near-peer enemy.

[@agggrgrg2419]

@@andyfriederichsen I am

[@agggrgrg2419]

@@M16_Akula-III it was never designed to fight Sam's, it's a cas aircraft the only stuff it was expected to deal with is AAA and short range Sam systems.

[@Vibakari]

I think the huge press is because when the Abrams gets upgraded almost the ENTIRE fleet gets upgraded So it much more relevant than Russia coming out with a dozen t14s

[@aarchiewaldron]

The Abrams have the highest probability of seeing active combat and we can get feedback on which technologies work and which don't. Also, the sheer scale of the Abrams fleet means that the upgrades will have an outsized influence on forces around the world.

[@Weakeyedominant]

@@arvedludwig3584 Abrams will still out number Leopards which is a disgrace to be honest. Germany should be the one providing the bulk of Europe's heavy armour and deterrent but they are to busy bending the knee to Putin to supply them with cheap gas.

[@Weakeyedominant]

@@arvedludwig3584 Poland is the only European country that maintains heavy armour in any kind of reasonable mass. Without US support Russia could retake the Baltic's and Ukraine with minimal effort.

[@kurousagi8155]

@@Weakeyedominant I thought that tons of EU and NATO countries use the Leopard 2. There’s Turkey, Canada, Norway, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Netherlands, Hungary, Greece, Portugal, Austria, Finland, and Sweden. No one in Europe besides the US itself uses the Abrams.

[@Weakeyedominant]

@@arvedludwig3584 Germany is still only spending 1.3% of its GDP on defense. If it spent 2% it's defense budget would be significantly larger than the UK and France, both countries also fund a nuclear deterrent and much larger Navy than Germany. Germany should really be the heavy armour bedrock of Europe with at least 1k front line state of the art tanks and heavily artillery. Instead we have a handful spread across a handful of countries while Russia is able to field 5k mbts even if they are of an older generation.

[@Weakeyedominant]

@@arvedludwig3584 foreign aid to the EU doesn't count as it is not spent on defense. Germany needs to spend 2% if GDP on defense period. If they still cannot afford expensive Germans to crew their armoured vehicles go down the military aid route and let Poland, Hungary and the Baltic's have them for free provided they can crew them.

[@KookieKatKid]

US Tanker here. The main Reason everyone gets excited about the next best thing for the Abrams in my opinion is that the US is the epicenter if technological advances (thanks DARPA) in equipment. The world looks to the superpower so they can react and also see how cool the gizmos are because we always want to see what the future will look like and how far we came from the past.

[@thomasborgsmidt9801]

I think the upgrades are interesting because the mobility, firepower and protection compromise is so close what is actually achieveable. There is in application not much difference between the Abrams, the Challenger, the Leopard 2 or indeed the LeCleck. But as few of us still use 30 year old computers, the non-critical parts such as the radio is gaining importance. To adress the F-35 problem: The greatest enemy of the F-35 is the F-16 - considering how good the F-16 really is. The F-35's main justification is in the role as a bomber. It has the range over the F-15 due to internal carridge of fuel and ordnance that hit instead of relandscaping. The Danish Huitfeldt-class is build specifically with upgrades in mind. Change the armament? Pull out the container and plug it in! The engine of the Huitfeldt is actually four diesels which perhaps sacrifice a knot or two in top speed; but is infinately more able to be maintained. If You really want to improve the mobility of the Abrams (or Challenger for that matter), you are best served with an 8*8 medium vehicle. The cross country mobility is not that much worse due to developments in tyre technology and the fact that it is half the weight, so the actual ground pressure is not that different from a tank. The firepower - and personally I think the 120 mm is to much, as the it is questionable if you can engage at ranges where the enemy is not visible due to terrain or even the curvature of the earth. Well, I have great difficulty in finding anything wrong with the L7 105 mm. As to protection - well the trick is to outrun the enemy - instead of persistently trying to bang your head against a brick wall. It means that the Abrams of the USMC are better placed near where they are to be used - and avoid river crossings - because getting them across bridges in peacetime is difficult enough as it is. It is not an argument against the tank - it is more a recognition that the ultimate tank has been build (or close to) - what is needed is accesorizing it better - as the fashion concious women will understand.

[@Plumbump]

Well, when it comes to the 105, the main issue... supposedly.. was the loss of velocity from it being rifled so ke rounds, and apparent loss of effectiveness with heat rounds,

[@MrFlatage]

You mean your 'justification' for the F35? No official source would ever justify it like that at all. Adolph did use the words 'ultimate tank' like you do. But his lies were exposed by facts. Then he blew his brains out.

[@thomasborgsmidt9801]

@@MrFlatage Well, I don't know what all official sources say, so there You are.... To use the F-35 as an air superiority fighter is normally plain nuts. But it makes sense in the Arctic. Anything that can get out from Murmansk is not likely to have much maneuvrebility. And stealth is not a great factor. With range the defending fighter can come from any number of places. For short range stealth is not an issue either - just look to the Typhoon. It is off the ground in a jiffey. Plus it has a nice enough range - and speed. Well, has anyone come up with a better tank?

[@thomasborgsmidt9801]

@@Plumbump Now the loss of velocity doesn't matter all that much if the ranges you fire at are beyound visual. Artilley overcomes that with base bleed where the drag is reduced AFTER the grenade has left the barrel.

[@thomasborgsmidt9801]

The point with the inability of heavy tanks to cross rivers is: Don't! There are a lot of rivers in Europe - not navigable far up; but Europe is mainly a coastal line - with lots of ports.

[@Mister-Chief]

My grandchildren will have their own grandchildren and still see the abrams serve

[@kurthasedd7923]

I think the fascination with new abrams variants comes from its history. It's such a fantastic tank, it was this great machine back in the late 80s and 90s, it's fought all over the deserts of the middle east and it undisputably has the most combat experience of any western mbt to date. I want the abrams to be competetive again, in the tank hobby community it's seen as inferior to many European tanks including the Leopard 2 variants, so I'm watching and waiting to see, is the abrams going to get better mileage, is it going to have better armor, will it's gun kick the hardest? I like the abrams, it's my favorite tank, it has been since I was a kid, pictures of its intimidating presence in baghdad, ramadi and fallujah still stick out in my mind. To me it's a conqueror, its stood over the wreckage of soviet era designs for many wars and anyone else that tries to lay claim to that is just a pretender, with the challengers 1 and 2 withstanding. With all that praise heaped on the tank, I'm going to deflate that by saying it's a money pit. They just released sep v3 and before it was 3ven officially rolled out the v4 was in conception. There are no wars for America to fight using tanks, maybe it'll happen again in the future but as for now and in the forsee able future there is no conflict they could be involved in that would make American tanks a necessity and if there was a conflict that saw their use by Americans, it's a conflict America has no business in

[@D3R3bel]

The sepv3 and v4 arnt that different save for electronic systems, which means that it's ludicrously easy to swap from v3 to v4 production as the supplier would also want to move on to more modern electronic components. The fact is what seperates US equipment nowadays is less the hard factors and the soft factors.

[@ab5olut3zero95]

Oh 1/16 CAV, the memories that brings back…. ABOLC at Ft. Knox, KY.

[@doomslayer7719]

Main reason tanks won’t go away. Mobile gun pill box made of armor. It’s the object as designed and it’s mobility. Also, Marines need to restore their tanks.

[@YorktownUSA]

All debatable.

[@aresgodofwar2092]

m1 abrams a tank so good they cant replace it even if they wanted to so it just keeps getting more powerful lol

[@samtheman-hp7fn]

It would be nice to see them use the bigger l55 gun instead of the one currently in use but I doubt they will it would give them greater velocity and still let's them use current shells instead of making them bigger for a greater velocity

[@alanbstard4]

better off with g6 rhino at 155

[@devonlord99]

Longer barrel also means less turret traverse in tight spots like forests

[@LoisoPondohva]

@@devonlord99 all those damn Middle Eastern forests.

[@mikewalsh1402]

Like The Rolling Stones, the M1 Abrams keeps on goin, and kickin ass!!

[@JDPLOWER]

A big reason people think about the abrams so much is it has a fairly high probability of being used in combat. Other western tanks not so much. Did the Russians bring the T-90 or t-14 to syria? Will they bring them to Ukraine? Maybe, but if the U.S. was involved in conflicts it's very likely the latest abrams would be there.

[@stevenstovall4491]

Not T-14 but they did brought over there T-90s with mixed results

[@MikoyanGurevichMiG21]

@@stevenstovall4491 They were older T-90As sold to the Syrian army but yeah tbf, Russia won't send in their elite tank regiments to go suck some TOWs or Javelins in Syria.

[@spencermaisey7550]

Tanker here. The v3 were never supposed to exist. Its just a stop gap between the v2 and the v4

[@cesaravegah3787]

The upgrades I really would like to see on it are the improved version of the Israel anti-missile system and the capicity to launch missiles either through the gun or with an external pod.

[@manictiger]

Javelin might be a good candidate. Means you can stick them behind the turret on a blow out panel (in case they detonate on the tank). Wouldn't want a Bradley-style pod, because it makes the hit profile bigger.

[@cesaravegah3787]

@@manictiger yeah, thinking on something just like that, two vertical launcher boxes with javalins and stingers would give it much needed antiair and long range capacities

[@manictiger]

@@cesaravegah3787 I think stingers need line of sight, don't they?

[@cesaravegah3787]

@@manictiger yes, as long as I remember those are IR guided, should be enough for defense against drones and helicopters.

[@manictiger]

​@@cesaravegah3787 I think it'd just be better to have a MRM-dedicated platform in the convoy for that. Attack helicopters tend to be effective out to about 5-miles. I think anti-missile measures are probably a better use of weight than stingers, especially since I don't know how much more room is left on an Abrams for yet more sensors and computers. Having just 2 Javelins on it means minimal extra weight, but much more flexibility. Also would be smart to make them modular, so it can be configured depending on mission.

[@atinofspam3433]

I’ve seen a lot of comments dissing the challenger 2 so I need to rant for a second. The Challenger 2 is not without it’s flaws, but remember EVERY tank has flaws, as there are always compromises that have to be made between armour firepower and mobility etc. Flaws like the rifled gun were conscious decisions to be included due to British tank doctrine including the use of HESH. And in any case the coming Challenger 3 will have the smoothbore from the Leopard 2. In terms of Challenger being heavier than other MBTs, again it’s doctrine. Since the Chieftain British tank doctrine has always bern leaning towards defensive firepower, which means Challenger is designed more for hull-down defensive positions. Mobility wasn’t a priority when they were building it. And I could go on longer but in terms of combat experience, yes it’s seen very little, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad tank. When it deployed to Kosovo, it never had to fire its gun in anger, which meant it did the job of acting as a deterrent rather than an offensive weapon. And Challenger 2 fought in Iraq alongside Abrams in the same conditions, and yet still no casualties. And in terms of numbers if course there are very few Challenger 2s. Britain is nowhere near as big as America, so it only needs a small tank force, and unlike the Leopard the Challenger 2 is only sold abroad to Oman. There is no need to produce a hoard of Challengers because the British army is only about 110,000 troops, compared to America with over a million. Every tank has flaws, (this is a small flaw but it immediately comes to mind), to tension the tracks on the Abrams you need to do the old fashioned tightening a screw with a giant crowbar. In the Challenger you just press a button and the hydraulics do it for you. What I’m saying is that lack of combat experience and numbers doesn’t make a tank bad. There is no such thing as a “bad” tank, every country has their own specific requirements of a tank, which is why there isn’t a universal MBT to begin with. The British did consider buying both Abrams and Leopards at different points, but again because of differing requirements they ultimately settled on the Challenger. TL:DR, every country is different, their requirements for a tank are different, and there is no such thing is a “bad” tank, and EVERY tank has flaws. (But we all know challenger 2 is best because of the boiling vessel) Also on the contrary, Matt dissing the continuous upgrades to the Abrams is counter to my previous points. Tanks are becoming more like modular platforms now, meaning they are intended to have continuous upgrades. The Challenger has had the same treatment, it was and has been continuously upgraded and will continue to be.

[@thelordofcringe]

Purely based on my caffeine addiction, Challenger 2 is best mbt.

[@kippamip]

Ex chally 2 man. I honestly think the M1 has been outdated now for some time. Even with the various upgrades. I think its time for a totally new development. Same goes for challenger I think we need a totally new tank. Threats have changes and drones now play a big part on the battlefield as well as the improved tandem war heads. Tanks need to change radically and they need a feature for better tracking and destroying drones.

[@Venator631]

And for countries like the U.S designs that are easier to deploy overseas should take top priority.

[@StrongHarm]

I don't think they'll try to pack everything onto the M1. They're using support vehicles more and more to shadow the tanks. The new variant of AA Bradley has an anti-drone laser, Stinger Missiles, and special Hellfires. I saw a vid of a hellfire with a special cluster payload that took out several drones at once. The new Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle is said to have an Anti-Air variant with a much bigger DEW and quick change missile magazines. I can see them going "man in the middle" eventually, like our Gen5 aircraft are. A single F-35 gets inside the threat while several F-15 missile trucks fire off x16 missiles a piece in the general direction of the threat, then return to base. The F-35 controls terminal guidance. Brilliant way to keep our Gen4s relevant. In addition, the F-35 can have "wingman drones" that carry a payload for them that they can control. Apache now has this as well. I could see the OMFV being autonomous for defense, then tasked with offensive targets by it's manned tank lead. As to the M1 being outdated, I can't argue there. It's a great design, and at this point the only thing that's the same as the M1A is the shape. It has a new engine, new sensors, new defenses, etc. ... it's even made of new steel.

[@summitl21]

The army doesn't tend to replace anything until there's a big enough technological and capability leap to justify the cost. There are designs being drawn up to replace the Abrams now. Time will tell if the army thinks they are enough of an improvement to pull the trigger on replacing something that is still getting the job done. Much like the M4/M16 and its 6.8mm replacements.

[@Venator631]

@@summitl21 And that is why at some point in the future the military will fight a enemy it can't beat because it refuses to let go of old tech or methods that need to be replaced.

[@johncarl5505]

@@Venator631 The enemy must have advanced a lot if that's the case, so designing a new tank would be a waste anyway. Until then, no new tank right now has any significant advantage over the Abrams until someone discovers a new element or something.

[@waynewagner6581]

Matt as a Texan I still love hearing about what the Brits are doing. Challenger, HMS Queen Elizabeth all of it. I just wish the British forces were larger, but living over here I'm not paying for them.

[@schlirf]

So, we're basically following the old soviet doctrine of upgrading our most successful piece of equipment without coming up with anything really new? 🤔

[@rexxmen]

Because there is nothing groundbreaking to make a new tank out of

[@enclave8214]

Now m1 abrams is more heavy than since 30 years

[@Spootythefoozler]

When I was in the army, when we were on the European mission Operation Atlantic Resolve sometimes when the Abrams were going through their first engine start in the morning, soldiers would stand behind the exhaust of the tanks to warm up. Not advised, but if you're freezing cold it's one way to warm up.

[@--Dani]

The footage of the American and Korean tanks at the range was awesome, beautiful.

[@TheOriginalJAX]

The thought that comes to mind, Is that they built so many of these things they were storing them in carparks on mass so it would not surprise me if the Abrahams gets the longest service life going as a platform. got to make up for the bad PR from over producing tanks somehow i suppose.

[@apricotcharms4126]

As a tanker myself, the biggest upgrade the Abrams needs is a new suspension. GD keeps adding more and more weight and it cuts the life time of the suspension/torsion arms and track by a fuck ton

[@BD90..]

I watched a old WW2 tanking hunters guide to taking out tanks. The weakest parts are the roof and bottom of the tank. Still the same thing even today. Same as the tank having dead zones and lots of blind spots. Makes sense then why tanks are accompanied by troops.

[@Anarcho-harambeism]

Were do you find all this high resolution footage?

[@oditeomnes]

Former Leopard loader here so here are my two cents on possible real upgrades, instead of "we have no idea in what direction we are going" upgrades. 1. Switch the engine to diesel (rather multifuel). Jet engine is speedy tactically, but a drag strategically both in fuel consumption and maintenance. 2. Even back in the days I was serving, we already experienced the modern role of a tank: night warrior due to better IR equipment than whatever infantry can carry. So NV/IR and other sensory packages are a must have upgrade to the latest specs. This is the most important: see first, kill first. 3. Think of the poor driver, Kongsberg group in the past tested out mounted cameras around CV90 and put a VR helmet on the driver to give him 360 awareness around the tank with near no dead zones. Good research right there and a real upgrade that will improve mobility and driver confidence. 4. Armata had the right idea: If there is no air with squishy humans to protect, then the volume of the armor needed will be much smaller saving many tons of unnecessary weight, install remote turret. Preferably with AI assistance that can rapidly shoot multiple targets sequentially after they are assigned by the commander. And finally, make a modular platform with standardized parts for strategic ease of supply and maintenance. That previously mentioned remote turret should be in many variants. Imagine Abrams AA, Abrams missile carrier, Abrams CIWS etc... Right now it seems like USA does not really know what to do with a tank, so they just put shiny things on it.

[@rreno496]

Doesn't know what to do with a tank? I suggest you read up on the battle of 73 easting, or any number of other engagements in the early stages of the Iraq war. Most of your other comments make sense, but your final comment is absurd.

[@oditeomnes]

@@rreno496 I was referring to the most recent upgrades lacking directions, unlike the clear purpose 30 years ago like you pointed out. I blame it on the part of the brass that keep telling us that there is no need for a tank in the future at all.

[@williamsherman1942]

@@oditeomnes In the end it doesn’t matter how great your tank is, if the American air force is in the sky you are screwed.

[@antred11]

@@williamsherman1942 That may be true against 3rd rate opponents with poor air defense like Iraq and Afghanistan, but against someone like Russia America wouldn't be able to use its air power so freely.

[@williamsherman1942]

@@antred11 While that is true, in the end America will overpower Russian ground to air defenses and likely air defenses also. That is if Russia is all alone and if America has enough time to pull their resources solely on Russia. But i don’t see why America would use it’s air force against Russia, it’s not like we Americans have ever considered invading Russia anyways. We’ve merely considered nuking it in a cuban missile crisis scenario gone hot

[@apersondoingthings5689]

Truly the buff of modern tanks. The only other B52s of the tank world are centurions, T34s, and Shermans

[@eibenzw2574]

Another one

[@modernbear7172]

There are three reasons why the Abrams gets so much attention compared to the Challenger. One, it has seen a lot of combat in high profile, and sometimes controversial wars. Two, everything surrounding the American military gets a lot of hype. Three, the United States has built around 10,000 Abrams, so upgrades will have a gigantic impact, even if not all the tanks in service get upgraded. This actually seems like a very smart and cost effective way to keep armored forces modernized, rather than building something completely new that will be massively expensive and may, or may not, live up to expectations. The Abrams has absolutely lived up to expectations and probably even exceeded them due to it's longevity.

[@andyfriederichsen]

8:28 Well, what are we supposed to use to replace our aging and possibly already outdated jet aircraft when our enemies (China mostly) are replacing theirs? There's a lot of misinformation about the F-35 (mainly from the same people who think James Burton was a genius).

[@theimmortal4718]

The guitarist?

[@user-vp9lc9up6v]

@@theimmortal4718 pentagon wars "hero"

[@theimmortal4718]

@@user-vp9lc9up6v Oh, right. Didn't recognize the name

[@henrycooper3431]

@@theimmortal4718 lets be real, you are not to be blamed Nobody would remember their name due to how utterly stupid their actions are that in the end we just swipe them aside like how we act toward trolls

[@2serveand2protect]

Glad we bought them then - all the Best from Poland.

[@lenkautsugi5747]

When it come down to tanks there are only 2 type of tanks I'll buy Germans and russians

[@TamamoF0X]

Man, the music in ths video was really good. Just fits so well.