The Real Pentagon Wars (For The M1 Abrams)

Sit back, relax, and enjoy the thrilling and weird political struggle to build the M1 Abrams. From 1956 to 1977, cold war politics took the world by storm to bring armor technology front and center in the nuclear age.

[@n4zou]

The AGT-1500 Gas Turbine Engine is actually very reliable. It's problem was the way it was used in the XM1 prototype tank used in development of the M1 tank. Everyone involved with the program had experience with aircraft Turbine engine's. As a result there was no intake air filters to prevent the engine from ingesting dust, dirt, and even mud. Aircraft Turbine engine's don't need air filtration but a Gas Turbine Engine used on land must have an air filtration system. An active air filtration system powered via the tanks hydraulic system was developed and installed in an air intake plenum system. This solved the reliably problem and it was discovered the engine performance was extremely reliable in actual use. So much so that Textron that built the engine went bankrupt simply because they were so reliable and failed to sell the number of engines that would keep them in business building them. After many years the Military financed a company to restart production of parts for engine's that were decades old and tired. It actually operates at a loss and so the military makes up the losses to keep it going.

[@terricon4]

Planned obsolescence.... there's a reason some companies do that today.

[@Reivehn]

@@terricon4 and it is bullshit to the consumer. Wish it was legislated against as much as possible, or if your products are more reliable over a longer period of time your business can be nominated for a large tax cut so long as they can maintain that level of reliability.

[@terricon4]

@@Reivehn I say making a shitty product is fine, making intentional changes to keep it from lasting is the problem (like is often seen with cell phones). For tax breaks or anything for a company that has long lasting products though, that would turn into a heavily exploited/fought over beuractratic mess of exploitation by the companies and their competitors. After all, accurate info would require all people that buy the product to provide life time numbers regularly then. Obviously many random people won't do this, and how it lasts varies likely by the way people take care of stuff. I know people that go through phones every two months, while I might keep one for five plus years before it fails on its own. If you can beat the competition buy buying some of their product, doing shit to it, and reporting low life times, great. If you can buy your own product or get someone who buys it to take good care and make sure they submit their info on the product, also great. This all said though, when do you even get a tax break then? If you make a good product like these engines, Do you get the break after they last just two or thee or five years? Ten years? It needs to be soon after the orders happened or it won't help as the company stops getting new ones sooner than later, and tax breaks mean little when you dont make anything now. But too soon and you can't really tell how long it'd last. Do politicians get together and vote on a given tiem for every random product out there, or is this only viable for some military contractors to exploit for paying less taxes perhaps? Sadly I see no option of government tax incentive to actually solve this problem, and not just create a bunch of new ones in the process. The best method if good business. Witch includes making products that last long and work well so you get a good reputation, but not to the point that you can't sustain your own business. That or if you do you accept that's a one off sale for that item and make sure it's not the mainstay item your business makes. Multiple companies have in the past failed since they only made products like this, that had high demand when new or something but once not demand dropped and they failed when they couldn't sell enough to match their new size, and the reality is there's no one good answer for those situations. And not all of them even really need a special answer we could argue. Ah... why is reality so complicated and tricky to solve... why can't it be like video games where you just do some random research, unlock some new political or economic buff, and bam the problem is solved somehow magically.

[@jeffsnider3588]

The turbine is smooth, makes lots of power for size and weight but is inherently expensive because of the alloys required and does really suck fuel. It is not a good choice for a land based vehicle. I thought it was chosen so that the Russians would have to "one up it", build their own turbine tank and go bankrupt!!😄

[@JM-nt5fm]

The turbine is brilliant if at all times when it's on it's being used at nearly full power (how they are used in aircraft). But that's not how a tank is used. It's idle fuel consumption is extremely high. That's why eventually a APU was installed. So the turbine buys you a wide range of fuels, but shoots you in the foot when you are not in the midst of blitzkrieg. You'll notice all US modern tank doctrine definitely takes this into account.

[@sdkfz2519]

.. also the among main reasons that the Chrysler design (the current M1) has a larger turret, which is better, than the GM design are: 1) The Chrysler design has "blowout panels" meaning the ammo are kept separate from crew compartment and if/when the ammo get hit it will explode "out" and not "into" the turret. 2) It has more armor (chobham armor). 3) Crew conditions are better, which is very important in long deployment, especially in nuclear war (when crew must remain inside to prevent radioactive exposure).

[@dnate697]

Yes!

[@benjaminlecrone9122]

1. The GM XM1 had blow out panels above the ammo storage as well. It could take the gas turbine and 120mm smooth bore with minor modifications also. These were guidelines set down by the Army prior to the prototypes being built. 2. As for the chobham/Burlington armor, the GM turret could have modified to accept the special armor just as the Chrysler tank was. Looking at the Chrysler prototype verses the production model you’ll see that the turret front was raised and thickened leading to a non-protruding gun mantel. These could have been done with the GM tank just as easily. Burlington was very secret at the time so the corporate teams building each prototype did not have access to an samples. Thus, the tanks originally had only conventional rolled-homogeneous steel as their primary armor. Layered armor comes in large flat pieces which then dictated the final turret shapes of the Abrams, Challenger and even the production model of the Leopard 2. Prior to receiving special armor the GM tank had better armor and that almost certainly would have remained true after the addition of the Burlington inserts as well. 3. I’ve read nothing that indicates that the Chrysler tank had better “crew conditions.” I do know that the GM tank made use of hydroneumatic suspension and could crouch to present a lower target especially when hull down. It’s very likely this would have also led to a smoother ride over rough terrain and better firing angles for the main gun.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

a larger turret is not necessarily better. for example due to the additional weight of the chrysler's turret the GM had faster turret rotation and target acquisition. 1) the GM XM-1 also had separated ammunition compartments with blowout pannels. (Abrams - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank Vol.2.) 2) the GM also had chobham armour (according to "Full Committee Consideration of H.R. 6566, to Authorize Appropriations for the Use of Energy Research and Development Administration, in Accordance with Section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended, and Section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and for Other Purposes: Volume 5" and "Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, Volume 2,") furthermore all the sources i have read either say they were roughly equally protected or that the GM had better protection. I have also not read anything saying the Chysler had better crew conditions. (edit: my comment differentiates form benjamin's one vias sources to backup my statement)

[@dnate697]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 The video is Very Biased and I was in the Army right after the Test at Aberdeen and Ft Knox. The small Turret meant only 24 rounds could fit in the bustle, about 30 rounds were scatted throughout the Hull Just like in the M-60 or even the current Leo-2 series.

[@hypercomms2001]

Having the ammunition separate from the crew compartment has proven to be a very important design aspect of the M1 tank as demonstrated with the Russian tanks with their "Jack in the box" turrets that blow up... kzbin.info/www/bejne/b6S6hGmubpxgec0

[@Condor1970]

The turbine is far more reliable than people think. In fact, it has more than proven itself. What makes it so valuable in the field, is the turbine quieter at longer range, and is designed to run on almost any kind of fuel. If it burns, it'll run. Not so for diesel engines.

[@Seth9809]

I have no records of us ever giving it anything besides jet fuel in all the years we used it.

[@Condor1970]

@@Seth9809 You never needed to, but it can.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

@@Seth9809 Not using its multi-fuel capability doesn't make it not a multi-fuel engine

[@Seth9809]

@@neurofiedyamato8763 If you design something to do something and it never does that, but it costs a lot more money.... That is a waste.

[@Condor1970]

@@Seth9809 ..It's called redundancy for war time operations. In a war time scenario, jet fuel may not always be available when cruising across the plains of eastern Europe in a war with Russia. That's what it was designed for. When/if logistical lines break down, you need to be able to grab whatever fuel is available, whether it be diesel, gasoline, heating oil, or even alcohol, the engine will continue to run.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

1. As I pointed out to ArcofCone, the M1 is not a copy of the Leo2. It also DID NOT copy any of the tech other than the 120mm gun which was redesigned with fewer parts and adopted as the M256. In fact the Leo2's stabilizer was a development of the Cadillac Gage unit installed in the Leo1s and the night/day sight in the Leo2A4 was based on a Honeywell design. A simple review of the references shows this. 2. The 105mm M68 with the M735 2d generation tungsten steel long rod penetrator fielded in 1975 could penetrate over 400mm (vertical RHA plate) at 2,000 m and just under 500mm at 1,000m. The M774 adopted in 1978 used a DU encased in tungsten-steel that could penetrate over 450mm. The M833 3d generation DU APDSFS could penetrate just over 500mm and was fielded in 1983. The M900 was not fielded but was available in 1990 and could penetrate over 550mm at 2,000m. The 120mm M829A1 fielded in 1986 could penetrate over 600mm at 2,000m. The D-81 125mm gun started with the 3BM9 a steel 1.5 generation APDSFS and was rated at ~375mm at 1,000m. I don't give a 2,000m point because the maximum effective range of the 125mm until the late 1990s was 1,800 m. The 3BM12 was a steel 2d generation APSFS rated at 440mm, the first tungsten-steel design being the 3BM15 rated at 500mm. The D-81 suffered accuracy issues due to the failure of the Soviet industry to manufacture powder and projectiles to consistent tight tolerances, such tools being prioritized for missiles and aircraft. A DU projectile wasn't issued until the late 1990s. The Chieftain L11 120mm gun could penetrate 375mm at 2,000m with the APDS round. 3. A laser rangefinder means nothing unless you have a full solution digital fire control system, something the Russians didn't have until the early 2000s.The initial T-72 model fielded from 1973 had a coincidence rangefinder, but not the mechanical off-set and analog fire control computers the US tanks had used since the M47 from 1951. The T-64A fielded from 1973 also had the coincidence RF but also stabilization and an analog FC. The T-64B fielded from 1979 had a laser RF. The T-72A also fielded in 1979 had a laser RF, but only an analog computer. The lack of long range accuracy was to have been fixed by the gun launched ATGM, but NATO began fielding "multi-layer arrays" near the same time making the missile less useful. The M60A1 between 1971 and 1977 received stabilization, a digital computer and a LRF, the M60A2 featuring the same from 1973. The full package including thermal sights came with the M60A3 TTS in 1979. Thermal sights were a game changer. The Soviets wouldn't put thermal sights on tanks until as Russians they did so from the late 1990s. All Soviet MBTs up to 1991 used active infrared systems. The IR searchlight next to the gun had a range of 800-1,200 meters, while the S/L on the commander's cupola ranged to 400m. The M60A1 received image intensification sights in 1973, which when light was available was good to 1,200 m. With a "pink" filter over the S/L, this could be extended to 1,800 meters on a starless night. Thermal sights had an effective range of ~3,000 meters and could "see" through smoke, sand, fog, and rain. M60A3 TTS, Leo 1A5/6, Chieftain 12/13, AMX-30B2 and such featured these vision devices and sights as did the Leo2A4, the M1 and the Challenger 1. US tactical doctrine from 1983 was "call for smoke" and blind the Soviets so the US tanks could take advantage of the thermal sights, which the AH-64 and the A-10 (mod w/Pave Penny) also had. 4. The Soviets used a single plate of silicate armor on the upper glacis of the T-64 and T-72/T-72A. The US Army found in tests in 1952 (yes, 1952) that a plate of silicate hit by a KE or HE round would suffer cracks around the impact area. Quickcrete would restore performance against HEAT rounds, but the damaged area would extend beyond the cracks weakening the plate. Which is why the US Army did not adopt it, despite plans to use it on the T95 and M60 series, until the system featured multiple plates in a polyurethane matrix. In addition, the early silicate arrays in the turrets were subject to similar damage. The T-64A featured upper glacis protection of 410mm against KE and 450mm against HEAT, somewhat less on the turret. The T-64B upgraded the turret armor to the same as the glacis plate. The T-72 was equivalent to the T-64B and the T-72A increased the protection to 500mm KE and 560mm HEAT. The T-72B increased this to 520mm KE and 950mm HEAT in 1985 at a time the US 120mm M256 could penetrate over 600mm at 2,000m, the German Rh-120 using a tungsten-steel round could do 560-570mm and the L31 round fired from Chieftains and Challengers could do 580-590mm using DU. Kontackt 1 ERA introduced in 1983 increased protection from HEAT projectiles by 200mm. The T-72BM introduced in 1990 featured Kontackt 5 which increases armor up to 200mm against KE and 500mm against HEAT. The T-80B introduced in 1981 was equivalent to the T-64A, then upgraded to T-64B level in 1982. The T-80U added Kontackt 5 in 1985 but was not manufactured in large numbers until 1987. It should be noted that the Soviets had such confidence in their base armor arrays that they introduced ERA across the force. They also suffered from the lack of growth potential in their size-restricted designs. The NATO tanks were at a disadvantage in daylight with 250-330mm (500mm w/ERA), Chieftain at 400mm and Leo1 and AMX-30 at 150-180mm. But the M1 was protected at 400mm KE and 1,000mm HEAT, as was Leo2A2/4, and Challenger at 500mm/800mm. But M1 PI and M1A1 were equivalent to 600mm/1300mm (1984) with the M1A1(HA) with DU matrix (1988) at 750/1500mm. The larger NATO MBTs featured growth potential for a number of new systems and improved weapons systems and protection. 5. The so-called reformers were less than sensible in their calls to return to simple systems. Yes, the US could build 14,000 M60A1 for the cost of 7,000 M1s, except it didn't have the industrial base to do that. The largest number of M60A1s built in a month did not exceed 180. They also acted if the US Army and USAF had unlimited manpower. The AVF (All Volunteer Force) went into effect in 1975. When I enlisted in 1975, there were 1.5M Soldiers in the Active Component. By 1980 when I got my commission, there were 900,000. By 1990, there were 750,000. Who was supposed to man these 14,000 M60A1s? Can you imagine the casualties we would have suffered trying to fight the Gulf War with M60A1s and F-5Es? Sorry, but these people were truly ignorant of the new world the US lived in after Vietnam or just idiots.

[@jakebarger4375]

They are both and for your fifth point for double the tanks that's double the spare parts two make and double the crew two train feed pay and house edit and that's double the tanks to transport as well

[@ericknoriega6507]

I aint reading allat. USA domination✊🦅🇺🇸

[@ahmangreen5945]

Damn. You broke it down like a fraction for em'

[@panzerofthelake506]

The M48 was a whole new tank design, not just an upgraded M47

[@Paladin1873]

A total of 49,324 M4 Sherman tanks in various configurations were built between 1942-45. Of this total, about 7,000 (4,295 of which were US Army) were lost in combat by Allied forces in Europe, with perhaps another 1000 (at most) being lost in North Africa between 1942-43. Many of these tanks were salvaged. The USSR built just over 57,000 T-34s of all types between 1940-45, of which 44,900 were lost in combat. No doubt many of these were recovered and rebuilt as well. Postwar production of the T-34 continued until 1958 in Poland and Czechoslovakia, bringing total production to 84,070.

[@Redmanticore]

plus later on the t54/55 series. "The T-54/55 series is the most-produced tank in history. Estimated production numbers for the series range from 96,500 to 100,000. ""

[@Paladin1873]

@@Redmanticore Yep, they're easy to build and even easier to destroy. ;-)

[@Flitalidapouet]

And they killed from 75% to 83% of German's who died in combat. (depends who you ask) Funny how I was tough in school America saved the day. Bonus points = Chinese killed 75% of Japanese who died in combat. And today, we wanna wage war with both. The definition of stupidity. 🤣

[@piotrd.4850]

@@Paladin1873 By modern tanks, sure; at time of introduction these were very capable vehicles.

[@runem5429]

Some weird factual/interpretatinoal issues in this video. 105mm gun / 120mm gun The 105mm gun was on the first production M1, the 120mm only came in with M1A1 update, 3000+ original M1s were produced, quite the oversight to only mention that the 105mm was on the prototype. AWACS Also AWACS wasn't originally meant for ballistic missile defence or whatever it was that was implied, it existed right after WW2 where you wouldn't have a chance of picking up a ballistic missile and when there were none apart from left over V2s and there wer no nuclear warheads that could be put onto them...AWACS was always about early warning of aircraft, ballistic missile detection, to the extent it exists is later development/consequence.

[@All_Hail_Chael]

Not to mention he went on about Rumsfeld while zooming in on a picture of McNamara. I'm a Brit, I shouldn't know the difference better than an American.

[@ShopeeMarketteam]

Also not to mention how he regards the T72 as "uninspired", NATO took the debut of the T72 very seriously, this concern was reinforced by the success Iraqi T64s and T72s had against Iranian M60s and even Cheiftains.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

@@ShopeeMarketteam No Iraqi T-64s, it wasn't exported.

[@ShopeeMarketteam]

@@michaelsnyder3871 my mistake, T62s

[@jamesricker3997]

One of the big reasons why the Chrysler version won was because it had more internal space in the turret available for future upgrades

[@killfang9659]

I lost interest at timestamp 3:20 due to your sheer lack of understanding how the Soviets pushed out that many tank. Wartime Soviet tanks where never produced to standard and often were missing components as rudimentary as crew seating and seals for the hatches meant to keep out rain. Also the Sherman isn't a light tank. It was classified as a medium.

[@Seth9809]

Which is a bit confusing, because the Pershing was a much tougher tank, but that was also a medium. I think the M60 was the first tank that wasn't written down somewhere as a medium.

[@killfang9659]

@@Seth9809 Has to do with weight as much as purpose as well as due to changing doctrine

[@michaelsnyder3871]

@@Seth9809 The M26 Pershing was classified initially as a "heavy" tank for morale purposes.

[@Utahpanzer]

Him talking about the M4 as a light tank was when I realized that this was a comedy video masquerading as a serious one

[@fastestfail2645]

The actual reason Chrysler won was Just because it was a better tank.

[@jamesricker3997]

The Clincher was Chrysler wisely designed their tank with more internal space in the turret, knowing they would need room for future upgrades

[@michaelmichael4132]

Anybody on the hunt for a ball of confusion should watch this video.

[@bluefoxy6478]

Nice argument senator why don't you back it up with a source! This dude: my source is that I made it the f*ck up!

[@superfamilyallosauridae6505]

none of this is true, and the article you cite makes claims like "the Germans didn't want to buy another American weapon, having agreed to purchase F-16s" the luftwaffe didn't even have a fighter acquisition program in that timeframe

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

actually some of it is true, the GM was chosen and then the letter saying so was delayed and then the chrysler was chosen. source: Abrams - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank Vol.2. i have also heard the other stuff before, but i haven't checked those sources.

[@superfamilyallosauridae6505]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 What source did Hunnicutt use? The article is from the 1980s, so it's old enough

[@bamaman6478]

12:55 It should be important to note that the germans cheated in the mobility tests by sending a leopard WITHOUT composite armour wich made it *significantly* faster than with composite armour. They also removed pretty much everything within the tank that wouldnt be vital for driving and shooting in the tests.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

i wouldnt call it cheating. They send a vehicle made to US Specifications for the Tests. This was called Leopard 2 Austere. It had downgraded FCS, Optronics, Armor and the L7A3 105mm maingun the US requested. They also send a proper Leopard 2 Prototype vehicle with everything included. That the Austere Leo still performed better than the XM1 prototypes tells alot about them. (And that the Leopard 2 tests were conveniently ignored by the US testing comission)

[@minimax9452]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 they only intention was to copy german technology. Leo2 ist a bestseller - xm1 is a gift for some allies

[@michaelsnyder3871]

@@minimax9452 BS, the German stabilization system was based on the Cadillac Gage system used in the Leopard 1. The Tank Thermal Sight was the same as the one on the M60A3. Leo 2 is not a best seller, it simply is cheaper over the life cycle because Switzerland and Sweden are next to Germany and not the US. The other countries using the Leo2 like Poland got them as hand me downs, not new production, just like the Poles are getting M1A2 Sep3(-) (intere3sting that they didn't go for Leo 2's right?). There is not a single system on the M1 that came off the Leo 2 other than the 120mm, and the US redesigned it for fewer parts and cheaper life cycle costs. Comments like this just put you in a class with ConeofArc who took his video claiming the M1 copied the Leo2 after I told him to read Hunnicutt and Zaloga. Perhaps you should read their books too?

[@minimax9452]

@@michaelsnyder3871 😅The Leo 2 is cheaper because Switzerland and Sweden is near - this is the reason why the saudis have bought it? Americans and geography. Why did Canada by the LEO because Germany is near? You made my day!😂

[@mrbrainbob5320]

@@minimax9452 Canada bought the leo for political reasons

[@randallbelstra7228]

The M4 A3E8 Sherman armed with the 76mm gun was deadly to the T34. Also, M26s, and M46's firing HVAP ammo actually pierced the armor in both front and back of the T34 and exploded several meters behind it. The tankers were ordered to not use the available HVAP and stick to standard rounds which were already highly effective against the Soviet tanks. In short, much of this program is horse manure.

[@matt_pigeonowsky1734]

"The M4 A3E8 Sherman armed with the 76mm gun was deadly to the T34." T-34! T34 was heavy american tank. "Also, M26s, and M46's firing HVAP ammo actually pierced the armor in both front and back of the T34 and exploded several meters behind" How? HVAP or APCR were not filled with explosives

[@acorgiwithacrown467]

Really? You disregarded an entire video centred on the Abrams because you don't agree with an off comment about the Sherman? Dumbass.

[@Redmanticore]

T-34, a 1940 Soviet medium tank. T34, a 1948 American heavy tank. T34 Calliope, a 1943 American Tank-mounted rocket launcher. also, if something was deadly to t-34, that was hardly the issue, as Germany had plenty of things that were deadly towards t-34, but russia produced them in such high quantities, that it did not matter. "The Soviets ultimately built over 80,000 T-34s of all variants, allowing steadily greater numbers to be fielded despite the loss of tens of thousands in combat against the German Wehrmacht. The T-54/55 series is the most-produced tank in history. Estimated production numbers for the series range from 96,500 to 100,000. "

[@ThugShakers4Christ]

@@Redmanticore numbers ain't worth shit if ya ain't got logistics to keep them running

[@grapegod6646]

Sure Nato tanks could easily defeat Korean ones, but it also goes the other way...

[@heavylifter315]

Did you really say Donald Rumsfeld was secretary of defense in 1977?

[@Mosquito-balls]

The best thing about the abrams is that the rounds are kept in a blast proof panels

[@realonthecircuit]

Can't help but appreciate how smart the the turret face design is too.

[@diegok2245]

Not only the Abrams do that.

[@Mosquito-balls]

@@diegok2245 well all russian tanks are dumb enough to have autoloaders

[@tommygun333]

@@diegok2245 The reason is that all the ammo is separated from the crew, unlike leo 2 with most of the ammo in the hull, giving flying turret effect...

[@diegok2245]

@@tommygun333 I know that but I was using the leo2 to show that it also has blow out panels. It’s something that is more common in western tanks. Just not to the same extent as the Abrams

[@AgentPepsi1]

You have gotten most EVERYTHING wrong about the M1. You are probably someone who believes the M16 to be unreliable because of early malfunctions in Vietnam. 😔

[@spamuraigranatabru1149]

Yeah, this badly represents the fact that the diesel was fully capable of being put in the winning design as they each had entirely swappable engines specifically to choose the better engine, which was the turbine. The Shermans that 'couldn't do anything against Soviet armour' were strangly the tank that was kept in place of the M26, M46 and M47 till the M48 replaced it in service, after it with its long 76mm gun proved to be easily capable of dealing with Soviet T-34s whilst also being far safer, more reliable and with a better fire control system which included a stabiliser. Both vehicles armour and fire control systems weren't even on the final design of the M1 which entered service, in fact the vehicle we saw in service barely resembles the XM1s at all in any way. The final design was a combination of the two and given to the company that needed the money the most.

[@zackthebongripper7274]

Diesel is not multi fuel.

[@zackthebongripper7274]

Your assessment of the Sherman is a joke. The Cheiftan already debunked all those claims.

[@mitchellsmith4690]

I mostly agree with you, except the M16 crack...we used them throughout my career, and until the mid 80s they were unreliable. The M16A2 was much better, but the family is still very high maintenence.

[@spamuraigranatabru1149]

@@zackthebongripper7274 Is that referring to me or the video?

[@brow1920]

Lol there are so many inaccuracies in this documentary it is actually pretty funny! Why the hell do you keep saying Donald Rumsfeld when showing Robert McNamara??

[@rostokk2706]

Thats the joke. The pentagon wars is garbage

[@WizzRacing]

The Turbine was not Unreliable.. And it wasn't a bailout.. They just made a better tank....

[@pagarb]

That pic of the SofD was McNamara, not Rumsfeld.

[@mdmagnusson]

That one really threw me for a loop

[@RC41591Shadow]

yup... all credibility was lost with me at the point

[@jamesalexander5246]

Yes, this post is foolish on many levels - not least of which is the Army was concerned from the outset that a Chrysler bankruptcy would halt or delay tank production. The conspiracy theory behind Chrysler getting the contract to stave off bankruptcy is pure BS. It happened anyway.

[@eskimo05w]

@ 14:45 This is an image of Robert McNamara, not Donald Rumsfeld.

[@bahti472]

You got whole sherman versus t 34 debate completly wrong. Sherman was superior to t 34 in almost every way.

[@polygonalfortress]

Not sure why anyone would pick the t34 over the Sherman. I bet such opinions change once they're asked to operate a t34 with it's abysmal concern crew comfort.

[@aker1993]

@@polygonalfortress most T34 are shoddily built unlike the M4 sherman

[@Orinslayer]

@@aker1993 Yep. Every single factory never built any of their tanks to the desired specs. T-34 on paper is a goodish design for an early 40s tank, but once you start cutting back on features it becomes a miserable experience to be in. By late 1940s the tank was completely obsolete.

[@Flitalidapouet]

So why you needed 5 Sherman to destroy 1 T-34? as tested with the T-34's German's captured and used. Plus, why it takes 8 to 15 shells from Sherman to incapacitate T 34 while it need only 1 to two shells on the Sherman. T-34 was horribly uncomfortable ..... only downside.

[@bahti472]

@@Flitalidapouet Do you have any proof or it came straight from your ass?

[@dnate697]

Note the results we saw when I was in the Army from 1977 until 1985. I remember the GM model NOT having Chobham Armor. It also was never tested with the heavier turret. Extra Weight affected the GM tank more the Chrysler. As said on another thread TRACKS affected the M1. Shake Downs are done to work out Bugs. I was on Ft Polk when the ground test were done at Ft Hood. Simulators were brought to Ft Polk where I was. Oh and 105mm DU APFSDS kept going through the berm and tearing up Target Lifters.

[@shizuoheiw]

If the turbine engine was so bad why is it still in there 43 years later?

[@mode3763]

So Chrysler can get the dough they lobbied so hard for...

[@shizuoheiw]

@@mode3763 but the engine isn't a chrysler engine it's a honeywell

[@holzmlb]

@@mode3763Chrysler defense doesnt exist anymore.

[@spicygopnik7032]

Funny thing is it wasn’t to bad. Because the Diesel they used on the MBT-70 program is literally the same one they used in the XM-1 program. That diesel was fucking terrible, throwing oil out of the crank at high speed turns, the engine would also eat itself on occasion also

[@antonelang9118]

Donald Rumsfeld wouldn't be Secretary of Defense for another 24 years.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

10:38 false, for the time the T-72's autoloader was no more vulnerable than any other tank's ammunition at the time, infact it was less vulnerable than most. it isn't untill the blow-out pannel equiped tanks like the abrams daybut a decade later that a new standard was made (even the leopard 2 had the vulnerability of the T-72 with its hull ammunition). as for its shape being old generation? that is the weirdest criticism of the T-72 i have ever heard. if anything its fairly radical considering it had a 2 man turret instead of 3man and its lower profile compaired to older soviet designs depsite the increase in firepower (both as a result of the autoloader) which meant more armour with no increase in weight.

[@19Koty96]

Also, T-72 in 1969? :) That would be the T-64. Noone in the west knew about either of them until later half of 70s.

[@taylorc2542]

He's saying the T-72 was an evolution of the T-55 design philosophy. They look similar.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@taylorc2542 wich it wasnt. T-64 was an evolution of T-62, wich then branched out into T-72 and later T-80 etc.

[@ShopeeMarketteam]

Yes and No, the T64 was incredibly well armoured frontal and NATO understood it. But they were well aware that the auto loader carousel was vulnerable, many M60 manuals when referring to the T64, recommended non frontal engagement if otherwise, aim at the tanks lower region and keep shooting until the carousel was hit. What he didn't mention is the change of layout for the T72's ammo carousel, now flatter and less of a target frontally.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

Unclassified reports found by Zaloga in research for his book indicated that the auto loader had real teething troubles, such as catching loose clothing, decalibrating after a number of shots (like the T-62 case extractor) and cartridges dumping powder as they were loaded. And yes, they were more vulnerable as the ammo in the carousel sat right up against the side hull along with additional rounds. The Soviet use of silicate armor was poorly executed in the T-64 and the early T-72, with a single plate on the glacis. The US Army found out in tests in 1952 (which can befound online) that KE or HE rounds would crack the armor not just at he point of impact but across the plate. They found Quickrete would repair and restore the HEAT resistance, but the plate was severely compromised against KE projectiles. And the Soviet initial multiple layer armors featured glass balls on wires or simple rubber/polyurethane layers in voids inside the turret face. Finally, the autoloader did not speed up the Soviet target process, for which the norm was 2 per minute at a time when the average NATO tank crew was expected to engage four or more and the best crews could reach eight. The Soviet tech wasn't sufficient which is why they felt compelled to use ERA on top of their "multi-layered" armor arrays.

[@terohakkarainen2136]

Ilman historiaa ei voi arvostella nykyisyyttä, saatika tulevaisuutta. Thanks Gabe.

[@Flitalidapouet]

FANTASTIC !!!!

[@sammyseguin2978]

Ever notice how the politicians and the high level desk jockeys, you know the ones who never have to actually pick up a weapon or put themselves in harms way are the ones who get to decide what kit the guys in the field get, after some hand shakes and backroom deals.

[@craiglarge5925]

The total production for the T-34 tank was no way near 100,000 units, more like 55,000.

[@TorianTammas]

57000 T34 were produced during the war, but the production went on afterwards and reached about 84000 total.

[@rightousIke]

The turbine engine is actually lower noise profile due to attenuation of higher frequency sounds. Also less smoke

[@jamespmullin21753]

100,000 t34? Funny

[@oneislander8550]

Was about to say, the Russians received a lot of US equipment. Why would they need lend lease equipment if they could make 100,000 tanks?

[@craiglarge5925]

Try 55,000 units, some produced after WW2.

[@lisahaler8013]

Nice

[@AERIALSPIRE184]

excellent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@venom2392]

What is the theme music played in the last few minutes of the video??, sounds familiar

[@MrJack1992]

Some things that need to be noted in Korea the Sherman maintained a good reputation despite it's age against north Korean tank crews and the T-34s flaw. When it came to overall crew survivability Sherman tanks had the best survivability. Technically it would also be classified as a Medium or main battle tank if one wants to call it that.

[@stevenbreach2561]

Shape wise,the prototype is very reminiscent of the Cheiftain MBT

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

both firms were highly informed by british tests on the chieftain that is why.

[@dun0790]

Wow excellent video mate sad it took me 2 years to find though dam KZbin

[@timsweet3224]

no mention of british chobham they used i see dont like having us give the yanx that do you .!

[@ThugShakers4Christ]

You lost all credibility by saying the T34 was equivalent to the Sherman. T34s basically had no quality control.

[@sunsetlights100]

gas turbine is the one can run on compressed air apparently

[@jamespmullin21753]

Especially in wartime

[@calvinfairhead7379]

Could you share your sources for this video? I’m looking for sources for a school project.

[@StabbinJoeScarborough]

M1A1 Greatest tank ever

[@matt_pigeonowsky1734]

M1A2?

[@jakebarger4375]

Amazing everything you just said is wrong

[@johnnaylor5026]

You started off with “Capital Hill”.

[@erikitter6773]

No, no and no. Pretty much nothing here checks out...

[@Idahoguy10157]

So much wrong in this video

[@MostlyPennyCat]

So did they both have Chobham? They're both boxy so I'm assuming yes for now.

[@jamesricker3997]

The prototypes "No"

[@MostlyPennyCat]

@@jamesricker3997 But they knew they were going to build the winner out of Chobham? No need for the boxy design otherwise.

[@furmanmackey5479]

I don't know what became of them but as late as 1983 there were at least two XMBT-70s on static display at Ft. Knox, KY. The GM and Chrysler XM-1s were still being tested by 2/6 Cav in 1980 and several friends of mine described the GM version as far superior to the Chrysler version. 2/6 Cav was a "Test and Evaluation Unit", also known as a "Test to Destruction Unit" and got all the newest armored vehicles that had not yet been accepted/chosen by the U.S. Army. After many months of working with both models 2/6 Cav presented its preference for the GM XM-1 to the Army. Shortly thereafter the Chrysler model was selected for production and service. I was told by my 2/6 Cav friends that GM sent a special train with attached flat cars and took possession of all the GM XM-1s and off they went to who knows where with a scrap pile somewhere being the common assumption. Oddly enough, shortly after the GM models were taken away, word filtered down from on high that GM had sent a short and not so sweet letter to the Army that basically stated that GM would never again bid on another major tank contract should one present itself. One thing that I learned while serving as a tanker in the Army was that an M-60 series MBT could at least limp back to the rear even with two or even four "blown jugs" but with the M-1, if the turbine blew or failed for whatever reason, it had to be towed as a "blown" turbine was a dead turbine which left the M-1 serving as a very expensive, unpowered bunker and a target from the air or land.

[@RobBCactive]

The M1 turbine also had half the range before refueling of allied diesel tanks in the Gulf war. It meant it was diesels doing the long "hook" for logistics reasons.

[@Plumbump]

They moved the armor museum down to Benning. There was at least one there when I went though training in 03.

[@taylorc2542]

We got robbed with the Chrysler.

[@furmanmackey5479]

@@Plumbump Thanks for the kind reply! Over the many years that have passed since I last saw either of the XMBT-70s I have often wondered what happened to them. At least now I know one of them has a chance at being viewed publicly again.

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJzXipKDnKdskKM

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

well, T-64 (wich was not disclosed to the public until more than 10 years after its introduction in 1968) and T-72 (introduced in 1972) shocked western analysts. Very advantageous low profile, massive, stabilised 125mm main gun, thick frontal armor, good mobility and low weight. The publicly known T-72U and A were comparable or surperior to everything in NATO service at the time. Remember: back in the time NATO also still used coincidence rangefinders (with the exception of the UK wich opted for a range finding .50cal on chieftain), analoge fire control computers, active/passive IR for nightfighting and in best case a simple two axis stabiliser. T-72A had everything the most modern NATO MBT´s had for only a short time and was entering mass production.

[@piotrd.4850]

Except, T-64 for all manufacturing issues, was BY FAR most modern and breakthrough tank at time of its introduction EVER. T-72 was requested as more ...manufacture-able alternative.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@piotrd.4850 yeah, when you consider that the budget version was on par with or better than everything NATO could field.... And it was mass produced in numbers NATO didnt have

[@codygrimes7681]

Robert McNamara being pictured for Donald Rumsfeld ahaha

[@peterrobertgyimothy4250]

Brennt gut😂👍🏻😂

[@PuffPuffPass0420]

14:45 is a photo of Robert McNamara NOT Donald Rumsfeld

[@kocovgoce]

both prototypes used diesel engines but Donald Ramswald decides that the new American tank should have a gas turbine like the Russian T-80. Аnd Chrysler offered a cheaper conversion оf xm 1 .GM Offer cost $ 210 million for first for the first 1000 tanks , and offer for HM1 from Chrysler was 196 milion dolars. But the share of political players in the deals did GM to lose .

[@lambomatt2]

Mopar woo! 🇺🇸 🦅

[@sparrow9990]

12:18 that's not a leo 2 that appears to be a leo 1a5

[@dwwolf4636]

Leo2 prototype. Turret was re-used for final leo1 series.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@dwwolf4636 no its a different turret, they use similar design langauge but they are different. the most obvious difference (visually) is the leopard 2K has a pointier gun mantlet.

[@MS07B3-G0UF]

Leo 2K

[@dirkdigler5332]

At 15:00 you mention Rumsfeld but show a picture of McNamara.

[@craigkdillon]

Hey, this would make a good movie, maybe starring Kelsey Grammar.

[@jamespmullin21753]

Why doesnt the US allow both companies to build the chosen design?

[@mrgold3591]

All part of the bidding process. They do the same with fighter jets, cargo planes, weapon systems, and military vehicles. How good would your car be if you could only purchase a Ford, ever.

[@lisahaler8013]

Nice /

[@almightytwee1188]

Ironic the mbt70 turned into the leopard

[@CrusaderVX]

Wow this is like the real Pentagon Wars.

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

@14:45 Um that's not Donald Rumsfeld, that's Robert McNamara.

[@thetanksofworldwarii-tanka4368]

I find it odd that the video contrasts the "unreliable" gas turbine of the Chrysler XM1 against the supposedly "reliable" diesel of the GM XM1 prototype. Even odder is the fact that the video says the MBT-70 had a gas turbine, when in fact it had the same diesel engine at the GM XM1. This engine is the AVCR-1100 (later re-designated AVCR-1360) made by Teledyne Continental Motors. The AVCR-1100 utilized variable compression pistons to maximize power output, and this technology proved to be troublesome. In the early 80's when there was concern over the teething problems experienced with the gas turbine AGT-1500 of the M1 tank, congress authorized further testing of the AVCR-1360 as a potential back up option and the engine. It did rather poorly in the ensuing tests. After this, interest in the AVCR-1360 died and the AGT-1500 enjoyed a long life as a well liked, if rather fuel hungry, component of the M1 Abrams.

[@holzmlb]

This dude did the laziest research ever

[@ShopeeMarketteam]

"T54's advance technology" Haha round thick potato turret

[@StarJackal]

Some rather bizarre revisionist history in this.

[@RobBCactive]

How would Darth Rumsfeld be defense sec July 1977? Jimmy Carter was POTUS and appointed Harold Brown

[@RGC-gn2nm]

NATO standard ammo, logistics and doctrine is what matters now. If it were not for the procurement issues in the 1970s we never would have won the Cold War. Now Germany can build all the Leopards it wants as long as they accept the 120mm NS APFSDS, have subsystems to current standards and uses the same fuel. I am glad everyone got something out of the 'NATO Standards' deals. Interchangeability in time of war means more than national prestige amongst allies to a point.

[@matthews1371]

How did the British Chobham armor get incorporated? Was it another trade off?

[@cwr3959]

Because it was the most advanced at the time.

[@mr.m1garand254]

What are some free video making software for KZbin? I’m trying to get my start using my laptop, great video by the way!

[@it_aint_me9081]

Davinci Resolve 17 is free, very professional feeling, and an all around great choice.

[@victorfinberg8595]

fascinating discussion of an interesting topic aside: i never did like the fact that there were so many different tanks named Patton, but you explained it well.

[@paulbedichek2679]

No,we want a large turrent,for all the advanced sensors, and we need turbine engines,much better.GM still has defense unit, don't cry for GM they are advancing with EV's and autonomous tech. Abrams is a tank Americas are justly proud of.

[@hekko161]

It's not L7, it's M68.

[@jeremybeaverson7167]

It’s the same gun bro i know you posted this a year ago but dang and the 120mm m256 is a German gun

[@roguenoodles_]

good video ngl very informative

[@darkdaysunrise]

awesome vid mate

[@BLUECHET]

Great video…. Lol 😂 good work !! And the M1 is awesome!

[@iroquoispliskin3609]

Donald Rumsfeld

[@ichimonjiguy]

In retrospect, the US government (Donald Rumsfeld, if it was his call) made the right choice. The Chrysler's M1 had room to grow, literally with its larger hull and larger turret. Not only could fit a bigger gun, but also had room for the modern electronic equipment. The turbine engine was also forward thinking. The GM's version might be better at the time of the trial, but the US military would be forced to find another main battle tank as its replacement, 20 years later.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

arguebaly the larger turret meant less room to grow, as there is less external room to add additional armor volume (remember the tank needs to fit into limited external dimensions for rail, sea and air transportation) and the GM could mount a 120mm ("Both contractors submitted proposals by 28 October for versions of their tanks with a hybrid turret capable of mounting either a 105mm gun or a 120mm gun." Richard P. Hunnicutt Abrams - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank Vol.2.) as for more room for electronic equipment? the GM had more internal volume than the leopard 2 and that has been able to add the electronics just fine, so would the GM. and how was the turbine forward-thinking? they both provided the same horsepower (also the GM could also mount the turbine engine, GM just prefured the disiel. likewise chysler could mount the disiel but prefured the turbine). there is no reason the GM wouldn't have lasted just as long in service as the Chysler has.

[@kyb5203]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 The thing is, the internal layout of Chrysler’s was more ergonomic and the gas turbine has a better multi fuel capability than any Diesel engine while also being much more subtle in many respects. The Gas turbine was one of if not the all time best decision about the Abrams. It fits the US military like a glove

[@Fagolore]

bro you talk too slow. set video to 1.25x playback and thats perfect

[@thewhitehousevietsubarchiv2625]

This dude just straight up tells lies without even a single primary source. Chrysler was chosen because it was a much better option.

[@ownage11445]

Any chance for a part 2? The 120mm gun wasn’t added until after the first gulf war. Hell even at the start of the gulf it was believed the M1 was a piece of junk until was actually used in battle.

[@heavylifter315]

The M1A1 HA was already fielded before the first gulf war.

[@BlacktailDefense]

The Gulf War happened in 1991; the M1A1 introduced a 120mm gun in 1984. M1s and IPM1s with 105mm guns were deployed to Saudi Arabia, but the US military decided not to use them in combat.

[@badlt5897]

@@BlacktailDefense Don't encourage idiots with facts.

[@Warpain572]

you need to do more reserch on how the soveits got to get 100k t34 short answer the t34 was a pile of shit and the m4 is one of the best tanks of the war

[@Davis_237]

Not a completely terrible video, your conclusions were worth sitting through the technical and historical inaccuracies.

[@sgt_malice4521]

I hope one day I can create a new tank for the US army

[@theweirdestfamily]

New channel if you keep making videos like this I will watch them

[@armyofshea7941]

And in 1998 Daimler acquired Chrysler, creating the Daimler Chrysler Corp. hmmm?

[@yoda5565]

Like the capitalist system or not, it still produced one of the finest MBT's in history. The communist system did not. So, the show goes on and look where we are today? T-14 Armada, it's NATO designation should be Unicorn.

[@Seth9809]

Actually, most of the Soviet tanks were better, till later on during the Cold War. Also, you are completely ignoring that Russia lost basically it's entire economy in 1990s and never really got it back. It's a miracle they can afford anything at all.

[@polygonalfortress]

Such ignorant statement smh

[@snowsnow4231]

western countries are wealthy because of colonialism and gunboat diplomacy, not because of capitalism there are plenty of third world countries that are capitalist and they suck hard

[@piotrd.4850]

@@Seth9809 I wouldn't say "better" but by mix of necessity and will - more agressively innovative (T-64). Soviet's lost MBT race due to inability to build reliable, compact 1500hp class engine. That enforced other choices, like llimiting MASS of armour, therefore need to depend on compsition and geometry (which for very long time required casting turrets) and introduction of autoloader and 'happy tanks' ( with limited depression ).

[@Seth9809]

@@piotrd.4850 The US has a 1500 HP class engine, but it's at the price of very serious fuel consumption. The T-80UD and similiar models had something like 1200 HP, while drinking a lot less fuel and not having the same issues as the T-80s. The Oplot-M, seems to have a fair bit of armor, but um... The weight is too much for the suspension. I honestly think that if the Black Eagle or some kind of longer, stronger suspension version of the Oplot-M was mass produced... It would be a fairly solid tank.

[@haiwin224]

SAE/Imperial got the US to the moon. Nobody has ever used the metric system to do anything that great.

[@samanthamaxis2180]

Soviets did way more let's be real

[@holzmlb]

Its like this guy believe every steorotype and myth ever created about every tank

[@cleatherrington4615]

Underrated video.

[@A54729]

How do you have so few subscribers? This is great. I am sharing this. Thanks for posting it!

[@matthewjones39]

Because almost everything he said was a lie.

[@A54729]

@@matthewjones39 oh no

[@bubiruski8067]

Sadly the Soviets did not proceed from Budapest direct to London !

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

why the hell would you want that?

[@bubiruski8067]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 I filed a response. It was censored. Evidence that I was right !

[@AnthonyEvelyn]

The Soviets were not fools.

[@bubiruski8067]

@@AnthonyEvelyn Very true. Whenever I needed to do a oceanic crossing I took care to make the overnight stay in Iceland and not in UK !

[@huaquansphere5512]

The way this story was told is legendary

[@jamesalexander5246]

Such BS. You failed to mention that even though GM did win the initial trials, the Army got a five month extension so that BOTH GM and Chrysler could redesign their tanks to better meet the Army's requirements. Chrysler redesigned their entry from the ground up. GM arrogantly did nothing to their original design. Even though there are different categories to compare the tanks, some categories are much more important than others. Chryslee had already won in every category except survivability and cost. Survivability is absolutely tantamount, and cost is also key. Chrysler's original design had quite a bit of bling. Once they were informed that the army wanted a less expensive design with much less bling, they redesigned their entry. Surviving a direct hit and continuing to fight is really, really important. Being able to build thousands of very capable and survivable tanks instead of just hundreds of blingy tanks is incredibly important. The German Leopard AV2 was tested without its armor because that would have made the tank 6 tons over the weight limit for the competition. The Leopard II is actually slower than the Abrams M1 once this armor weight is added in. Weight is much more important to the US Army because any invasion of Europe by the Soviet Union would require many, many more US tanks to be transported to Europe. Germany didn't have this limitation when tgey designed their tank, duh. Also the Leopard II was nicknamed "Old Smokey" because of its smokey diesel engine. A smoke cloud can hide you from an enemy, but this isn't nearly enough smoke to hide you. A smoke trail behind you gives away your position. Just ask F-4 Fantom pilots from Vietnam. In the competition, the financial situation at Chrysler cut against them on all levels. A bankruptcy would interrupt production (which eventually did happen). The Army knew this. The second round of testing seriously favored the Chrysler redesign because it was a far better design, AND it fit the Army's needs much better than the GM design. It had speed, firepower, survivability, and maneuverability advantages over the GM design. It was by far the better design, hands down.

[@rebelbatdave5993]

my opinion! Should have just upgraded German WWII TIGER'S! Until something better could be made!

[@anarchyandempires5452]

Other nations curroption tank: steals the money runs away to Brazil. USA curroption: results in the production of the most powerful tank in the world Other nations curroption IFV: results in 3 failed infantry fighting vehicle programs in France, project gets cancelled, sneaks out of the nation inside a briefcase, steals the money and runs away to Brazil. USA curroption: results in the mass production of the most effective recon and infantry fighting vehicle in the world. Russia curroption Fighter jets: 10 canceled fighter jet programs in 20 years, SU-47 reaches final prototype stage gets canceled anyway because of massive corruption in every single level of government, lead of the design bureau is caught while trying to escape to Brazil, and is shot for embezzling the equivalent of 3 billion dollars. USA curroption Fighter jets: the F-35 is an incomparably powerful fighter jet that absolutely dominates over anything else in the skies and is the only 5th generation fighter jet in mass production, also it's production has reached such a level that it is actually cheaper to purchase than most 4.5 generation fighters. Your corruption works by stealing the money and giving nothing to the nation back in return. Our corruption works by giving everything we promised to the nation and then more, but still charging about a third more than absolutely necessary, because we know for 100% fact that Congress can't do math worth a shit and that so long as the job was done well enough they don't mind paying a hefty premium. We are not equals when it comes to corruption, you only care about the money and never think of the future, we on the other hand have to care about the mansion in California we're buying with that money after all we're not just going to run away to some third world knockoff Mexico in South America, now we have to make sure that Mansion is defended better than anything else in the world so we're going to make sure to do a damn good job...... Also the IRS is like super scary and has zero chill so if we fuckup we get the Al Capone treatment

[@Battlfield3fan]

MAN good job witht he documentaries! Underrated af! U earned my sub!

[@halflifeapc8777]

Exceptional video, please do more