Which Country Has The Most Powerful Main Battle Tanks? | DCS

[@Duvstep910]

Leclerc: *slowly turns turret towards jeep* Me: 🤣 I know where this is going

[@AHURKY]

TWAT! 🤣🤣🤣

[@connorparks1130]

The Merkava's barrel is not short to operate in urban environments it's a common myth but it's not true. It's the same length as the L44 as it's just a domestically produced version of it. The gun just looks shorter because the first part of the barrel is covered up by the turret.

[@knochi956]

Yeah, they didn't want to import the L55.

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@AgneDei]

@@knochi956 The newest Abrams SEPv3 still uses L44 gun, which is a bit of a bummer, as it lacks performance with tungsten rounds compared to the new Leopard's L55 gun.

[@jerrybeard2670]

@@AgneDei No major Loss of penetration with the L44 and the M829 Round. They are still capable of hitting out to about 4600 meters with like an 80% change of first shot kills if I recall..

[@AgneDei]

@@jerrybeard2670 Don't compare depleted uranium core to tungsten core rounds, that's dumb because L55 can also use them with significantly higher performance than L44. You just can't work around physics.

[@ajgorney]

T80 is derivative and development of T-64, Russia's top of the line tank from the 60's and 70's, while the T-90 is a development of the T-72 which is a cheaper tank intended for large numbers and also export markets. The 64 and 80 were more well developed and refined than the somewhat more economical and basic 72 and 90 respectively, though of course a lot also depends on the level of advanced equipment on the specific model.

[@timurlane4004]

But wasnt T64A , T64B variants worse than T72A,T72B variant in all aspects?

[@marinodezelak1180]

"The 64 and 80 were more well developed and refined than the somewhat more economical and basic 72 and 90 respectively" If by "well developed and refined" you mean "riddled with issues, prone to failure, overambitious and badly designed" then yes... yes they were.. The T-72 wasn't cheaper because it's worse.. it was cheaper because it already had a pre-existing industrial base for its production.

[@ilejovcevski79]

The Pz-IV and th Pz-V barrels may be the same caliber, but the Panther's is certainly longer, thus a higher muzzle velocity of the projectile.

[@piminat0r]

And if I'm not mistaken also had larger brass, standard ap round of the panzer 5 were lighter but the round itself was about 3kg's heavier, also about 250-300 Ms velocity higher on standard ap

[@JustLiesNOR]

@@piminat0r Yeah. Same with the Tiger 1 vs Tiger 2. Both technically 88mm, but damn the Tiger 2 gun packs a hell of a lot more punch. 88 x 571mm vs 88 x 822mm shells AND a longer gun. A more logical progression, both in terms of armor and firepower, would have been the Panzer4 -> Tiger1 -> Panther, -> Tiger2. Sure the Panther "only" has 80mm of frontal armor compared to the Tiger 1 100mm. But the panthers armor is sloped back while the Tiger1 armor is almost completely flat, thus making the Panthers armor effectively thicker. (not that any of that level of armor matters against modern 120mm guns). And the long 75 on the Panther had more penetration than the 88 on the Tiger1.

[@bigfootape]

The IMI 120mm barrel is 44 calibers, just like the M256 in the M1A2 and Rh-120 on the Leopard 2. Merkava has the power pack mounted in the front (for extra crew protection), so the gun probably sits a bit further back on the chassis. The power pack and transmission on the Leopard 2 is absolutely amazing, so winning the drag race is no surprise.

[@BBCRF]

В этой гонке должен был победить Т-80У он имеет 27 л.с на тонну и самое низкое удельное давление на грунт

[@cailewis9089]

For the fighting ability test, for better results, use a wider battle spread. A narrow spread has the same effect as being surrounded on 3 sides.

[@FalcoGer]

Abrams have 2 ammo racks. One near the breach and one in the back. Loading from the first one takes very little time. You're supposed to shuffle ammo from the bigger shelf between fights. Loading ammo directly from the rear shelf takes a lot longer.

[@jerrybeard2670]

The ammo is stored in an armored compartment..The ready rack behind the loader and the semi ready rack behind the TC. Ready rack holds 25 rounds. Semi ready 20. To access the Semi ready rack you have to disconnect the hydraulic door actuator on the ready rack, fold down TC's seat and then wrench door partially open to start pulling rounds out. Takes about 10 plus minutes to do complete transfer.

[@williamroberts6803]

Watching tank battles on the gulf war and the commanders were saying they were going fast and could fire once every 6 seconds and just drive through the enemy without slowing down.

[@Livi70590]

Should have had the 'How well can it make tea' test between the British tanks.

[@swingingbunny3550]

The Merkava has active shield, which of course not simulated here. with that, with a full crew it is a lethal monster. aiming and shooting fast in a hard terrains. DCS is a good flight sim, but not too good with the tanks yet.

[@Aardvark892]

There's a great WW1 mod for DCS that includes many tanks and vehicles. Would love to see them included in tests like this.

[@brianjohnson8725]

When Simba shoot Cap, I laughed so hard I got light-headed. Thanks, Simba I needed that laugh!

[@frenchouiaboo816]

the reason the merkava's barrel seems short is due to the turret being mounted more to the rear than the more traditional middle position and the face the add-on armor it posses extends so much on the barrel, when in reality the gun is as long as a Leopard 2 or a M1A2

[@warbuzzard7167]

Oh, when Simba did The Thing to Cap... priceless!

[@giwrgosv]

A similar test was conducted FOR REAL in 1998 in Greece. The tanks that took part were the M1a2 Abrams, Challenger 2, Leclerc, Leopard 2a6, T-80U and T-84 from Ukraine. The test included among others: firing on the move, starting at 60% slope, traversing a ditch 2 meters deep in water, vertical obstacle, detection and identification of target at night and endurance and fuel economy run for 1000 km. To no-one's surprise Leopard came first followed closely by Abrams, then Leclerc and T-80 and T-84. Leopard was also somewhat cheaper than the other western tanks. As far as i know it is the only comparative test of modern MBT ever.

[@AgneDei]

With the turbine engine it's quite interesting for the Abrams to get a good result in a test where the fuel economy is a factor. I guess it had small weight for the final score, as besides that it's a great tank.

[@giwrgosv]

@@AgneDei Abrams came marginally first in the technical evaluation actually, it scored well in optics an fire control devices. Only when price was evaluated Leopard went on top, again marginally. There where also 2 companies that didn't present a tank in the test.

[@m1t2a1]

Watched Tank Chats from The Tank Museum Channel and more, about each tank being used. It made for an enjoyable afternoon.

[@perrykivolowitz7323]

If you're going to include a T-80 shouldn't you have some farm tractors nearby? You know, to drag the T-80 off the field? Just sayin'

[@grimreapers]

lols

[@stephenhamblin3333]

Hilarious when he blew the jeep up at the beginning. absolutly the funniest shit I've seen all day .keep it up boys .

[@jerrybeard2670]

Smooth bore guns use a Sabot round when firing Primary Armor Defeating rounds (Sabot) Penetrator encased in a discarding sabot carrier which is discarded after round exits barrel. penetrator is basically a dart flying at roughly 4-5 times speed of sound in a near flat trajectory...Very accurate..

[@angelarch5352]

Love the tank video!!! please do a version of this comparing different IFVs like Strikers and LAVs and BMPs etc.

[@Thurgosh_OG]

It would only really work if they tried to use actual combat tactics and not drive fast to the enemy and hope you can hit them before you expose weaker side armour.

[@duanesamuelson2256]

I would like to know what the actual speed and acceleration was. I can't say anything about current tank speeds/acceleration but the M1 can definitely run over 100kph cross country (regardless of what the official speed is). The original speed was limited by the surplus M60 track which was used.

[@YourTechpriest]

Former M1 driver, I've ran around 72mph (116kph) flat out on desert dirt roads. Though the tank slows down A LOT when a hill gets involved. (plus I tweaked the governor settings on mine)

[@Wyomingchief]

@@YourTechpriest 👍😂

[@duanesamuelson2256]

@Local Techpriest yeah..I was always jealous of you guys being in an armored vehicle that could pull a wheelie. I was Artillery (SP) always with AD'S or CAV and you ran circles around us.. (of course we could shoot further and over hills 😉)

[@scottr9900]

An Abrams would have a hard time killing another Abrams. I’m betting that the tank that slows down is suffering from dust filled v-packs. 😀

[@M3PH11]

not it took a round to the front axle mounted gearbox and lost a bunch of gears.

[@scottr9900]

The tensioners are mounted to the front bogies. But the drivetrain is connected to the rear drive wheels. Ask me where my Craftsman 15/16” is.

[@nuclearTANK]

Not if they're both using DU APFSDS, during the gulf war an Abrams fired on another Abrams with a DU round and it went right through the frontal armor

[@josephgrant6511]

@@nuclearTANK Ummm... that's inaccurate.

[@Nerule]

Sabot rounds are depleted Uraniam rounds peeps. Also, the reactive armor by the A2's are classified, so are how the servo stabilizers keep the tank leveled while hauling ass.

[@strambino1]

The modern armor piercing fins stabilize discarding sabot round has a muzzle velocity approaching 5577 ft/s 1700 m/s or Mach 5. The tungsten penetrators will go faster initially and the depleted uranium penetrators are heavier so they start slower but they keep their velocity longer.

[@3idraven714]

Do you think they might have used a heat type AT round instead of sabot, against old pure armor (not composite)?

[@Badself55]

When Cap says, "say hello boys 🧐", that's when I know the fun is beginning.

[@MTBScotland]

Cap getting blown up was inevitable after that le clerc tank comment.

[@grimreapers]

:(

[@MTBScotland]

@@grimreapers I nearly woke the wife up laughing at it.

[@bohan9957]

Can the Challenger II really move that fast? I thought it is the most heavily armored MBT in the world but it moves like a turtle.

[@grimreapers]

No idea TBH

[@armenius7553]

The merkava is basically a backwards cheftian chasis

[@BcHmF]

I really want to see the last round where you go against the rows of old tanks.

[@jamesvanderpoel2135]

Priceless Simba....Priceless almost pissed myself.

[@claudetremblay3892]

I used to be a leopard mechanic in Canada. The speed of that is really at the start. It’s speeds up like crazy for 65 000 kg beast

[@ecbst6]

Tanker, tanker, don't be blue... Tinkerbell's a fairy, too 😁

[@Phil-pf1cx]

The Merkerva also has compartment in the back to act as a troop carrier

[@M3PH11]

As a tank fan I can answer this without watching the video. IRL, the answer is probably the Leopard 2A7 but it is yet to be seen what the Challenger 3 can do in battle. I'm also a little shocked you bothered with the cheiftan mk3. Doees anyone even still use it? 8:16 it's slightly lighter and has a more powerful engine. It achieves this with the angled spaced armour on the front of it's turret. The LeClerc is essentially the same idea but it doesn't have the power to weight ratio and i believe has taller ratios in it's gearbox (don't quote me on that). 9:41 Torque or the force of twisting. Torque is what gets things moving. The heavier a thing is the more torque you need to get it moving. Once it is rolling there will come a point where torque is replaced by power (in vehichles HP or PS) 14:58 the problem with that is if you get a shell go through it's an immediate mobility kill and the tank is lost. Which means it will fail the test as it will not be able to shot while moving. 20:50 The chally has a stablised gun. The cheif doesn't. So, everytime the chief hit's a bump it puts the gun off target. chally has no such issues. 22:03 So explain how sabot rounds can do it then? No? Ok i will then. The real answer is the angle of slope. The angle of slope increases the *effective* armour thickness. With a hard round tipped shell like a WW2 tank shell, this angle and the roundness of the head is what causes the bounce (reasons why ther UK invented Squash head shells). Sabot rounds being thin and pointy counteract this somewhat. It's like the difference between stabbing something with a spoon and then stabbing it again with a knife 26:09 This is simply down to the type of shell being fired. The modern tanks are firing armour piercing fin stablised discarding sabot rounds (APFSDS) the fin stabilisation increase round accuracy and they are also considerably lighter which also increases muzzle velocity. The Panzers are mostly likely firing Armour piercing capped Balistic capped (APCBC) rounds. This are heavy AF and wobble slightly while in flight. This increases aerodynamic drag, decreasing accuracy and velocity. 33:23 They are for killing targets dug in behind cover and for highly mobile targets where the turret can't move fast enough to keep a lock for the cannon. Some countries do use them against aircraft but they are not actually designed for that use.

[@grimreapers]

Thanks Sir!

[@Anarchy_420]

4:03 😂👍 21:52 bounce kill😆👍👍

[@gorn1675]

3:07 The Russian T-Tanks are not Follow-up numbered in Versions or something. So for example, not like German Leopard 2A4 -> 2A5 -> 2A6 -> 2A7 are newer versions by rising numbers. The T-72, T-80 and T-90 are more like parallel-productions/constructions that each will always be upgraded to the newest stand of technology if possible. T-80 and T-90 use the same Gun but while the T-80 uses a Gasturbine, the T-90 has a V-12-Dieselengine. This makes the one not Better than the other, they are just different models for different uses. And the T-72 is more or less a cheaper mass-Version that is used in larger groups to overrun enemys when possible. But that does not mean that the T-72 is less modern equiped, it just has an other usecase and is not compareable with T-80 and T-90. I know, the T-80 is an old sovjet tank and the T-90 was intoduced in 90th but that makes the T-80 not less important or less powerfull. They all will be upgraded parallel.

[@gorn1675]

@@TeenTeenFpv that is true. But for example, the T-90 was developed in the 90s But in its core it is just a T-72 that was given a T-80U fire control system an reactive armor. So it is basically a renamed T-72. If you watch in the T-72 history, it ends with the Object 188 (T-72BU) which is the T-90. Even the T-64 is still in use, modified to be as effektive as All others

[@lukewhitehouse4103]

The modern fire control systems on these tanks have such a high hit rate on the move none of these WW2 tanks would be able to hit the target. Pzgr 40 as used on the Tiger is about 800ms-1 the DM33 on the Leopard 2A4 is about 1500ms-1 Leopard 2A7 is regarded as the best tank in the world.

[@hanz2035]

I would say that the 2A7 is very good but certainly not "the best in the world" because no tank is the best, they all have their disadvantages

[@lukewhitehouse4103]

@@hanz2035 Of course tanks are always a compromise, the best tanks generally are a mix of firepower, armour, crew protection and mobility. The list of truly elite tanks is short. Leopard 2A7v+ and the (STRV122B) M1A2 SEP V3 K2 (untested but looks very capable on paper) T90M and MS. Merkava IVM Then we have second tier tanks Challenger 2(TES) Type 10 Leclerc T-72B3 (Ukraine is not a fair assessment of this tank) ZTZ 99. But yes you could argue all day about who has the best tanks, but the important thing is not to be blinded by nationalism.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

@@lukewhitehouse4103 not sure I would put the T-90M up there, it still lacks some pretty essential features like blowout panels, and it might still have the old autoloader flaw that prevented earlier variants from using longer more modern APFSDS rounds, not sure if that has been fixed or not.

[@lukewhitehouse4103]

@@jonathanpfeffer3716 The T-90M-MS-SM exported to India and the current Rusfed version has had the autoloader armoured in 400mm composite armour, the rear of the turret has been extended to allow safe storage of additional rounds stored with blow out pannels. A Hardkill APS not fitted to all tanks as of yet, India will likely fit the Trophy system to their T-90SM tanks. The laterst in FCS and battlefield control systems and its just looks so damn good. However all these points are subjective.

[@jumboskipper1958]

Leclerc, M1A2, Merkava, and the Leopard 2A4 all have the same 120 mm smoothbore cannon. the only odd one out is the merkava's weapon systems creator falls under a different name, but the same technologies. The Leopard 2A5 to 2A7 have an L55, or the barrel length is 55 calliber length long, instead of the L44 as in the M1A2, Leclerc, Merkava, and Leopard 2A4. As well, the Leopard has a 2200 HP engine for getting into trouble, and the leclerc just needs to retreat fast

[@Tetemovies4]

No, the leclerc has a longer canon than the 2A4, merkava and M1A2, it’s a L53

[@TheCleon]

Congrats on 200k and keep up the good work

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@matts2758]

I hope they do something about that grass pop in. Really kills the immersion.

[@vrbnjakd]

4:03 Simba deserves a medal for this. 🤣

[@grimreapers]

neg

[@sgxbot]

the 500-600mm armor of the leopard 2 is an equivalant to if it was just steel armor. the armor is not really half a meter thick that would go against the focus on mobility the leo 2 was designed for

[@lordsqueak]

I'm probably wrong about this,, but I think the Leopard has a diesel and a gas turbine for some extra Umph when it's needed. besides that,, I think it just had better acceleration,, after a bit most of the tanks was traveling at pretty much the same speed.

[@n8spL8]

the T-90 is just an updated T-72, making the T-80 a more modern/effective design. (short version)

[@infinitetk4165]

Depends t-90A is a updated T-72 but the t-90m or proyvr 3 is arguably top 3 mbt in the world

[@peteturner3928]

T-90 has also inherited all of the T-72's flaws and is a death trap, as it's less than stellar combat record testifies to. T-80 itself is in essence a simplified (in manufacture) and more robust (especially suspension) evolution of the T-64. When I crewed Chieftain in the 80's and early 90's we feared the T-64 far more than we did the T-72 as they tended to be used by professional units and not just conscripts going through the motions. But I'd still rather be sat in a Mk.11 Chieftain than any of the Soviet era Russian MBT's still in service, no matter which bells and whistles they have bolted on them., a 120mm depleted uranium APFSDS round will still spoil anyone's morning and the L11A5 gun Chieftain and Challenger 1 shared is still a record holder in combat. But any wagon is only as good as the quality and training of their crews, as the news from the Ukraine proves daily.

[@ser43_OLDC]

T90A yes t90m no

[@92HazelMocha]

@@ser43_OLDC Not even T90A, the original Obj 188 derived design (just called T90) was the only one even related to the T72, and only in the construction of the turret. This was changed with T90A.

[@NeuroScientician]

@@infinitetk4165 All russian tanks are shit, all just propaganda, in reality it is just rusty garbage from 1970 that get renamed now and then. Plenty of T90 rotting on Ukrainan fields. Shit tanks with shit crews

[@trishsoha]

Panzer IVs had 75s but the length went from 24 caliber in the IVD, to 46 in the IVF, then 48 in the IVJ.

[@trishsoha]

And Vs had 75s but length 70 x diameter so higher speed 75..

[@trishsoha]

Tigers had 88s 56 x diameter, King Tigers had 88s 71 x diameter so higher speed 88.

[@mathiasnieder8336]

It is NOT "Panzer 7" for the Tiger 2, it is "Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B Tiger II " because allthough a completely new design, somehow in the german naming System both Tigers were "6" ;-)

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@MrWiggo91]

So a number of things here and at this point I'm only 4 mins in: 1) Chieftain also has a rifled gun with the Mk3 utilising the L11A5 2) the Merkava's barrel is the same length as that of the German Leopard 2A4 at 44 calibre length, its just the shape of the turret mixed with the fact that it's powerpack is mounted at the front which gives the illusion of it being shorter. 3) The Abrams, despite looking massive on the screen in the lineup is actually one of the smallest Western tanks going. Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 are both a fair bit longer and taller both in the Hull and especially noticeable with Challenger when it's gun forward as it utilises a 55 calibre length L30A1 main armament whereas the US M256 is a license built Rhinemetall L44, so 44 calibre length. Additionally the Abrams cannot fire ATGMs through its barrel, however the Israelis have trialled ATGMs with the Merkava 4. 4) The T-80U will be better in most regards than the T-90 because it is in real life. The T-90 sounds newer but is essentially a T-72BM, they rebranded after the disaster of the first Chechen war to get the funds to design it and that war is also where the T-80 fell out of favour because many of them got schwacked in grozny.... It wasn't really fair on the tank but it was scapegoated and I won't explain it all here as there isn't the space but essentially there was alot of politics at play between the design bureaus (T-80 is designed by a totally different manufacturer than T-72/90). Short of it is that the T-80 was designed as a more expensive, complex and capable machine that was to be fielded by Guards tank units rather than the riff-raff but couldn't be rolled out army wide because of the expense and complexity.... Still made in excess of 7500 of them though so by our (British) standards, thats alot. 5) ah the ZTZ96.... What can I say? Its a piece of shit and not even a durable piece of shit like much of the stuff the Russians pump out en-masse 😂 6) The Leclerc is a capable machine, not as armoured as other Western tanks but its built to a different doctrine. 1500hp has turbine in something which weighs less than 55 tons means it's got some beans and they're cool inside. Worked with them when I was deployed alongside the French a few year back (I was on Chally 2).

[@Ilstad88]

ATGM are used for top-down attacks, armour is very thin on the top.

[@Fox3-Luck]

Great Vid Cap!

[@angelarch5352]

T-80 is better than the T-90, because the T-90 is basically a renamed crappy upgrade of the T-72.

[@andyrobinson1059]

I served on Chally 1/2, the armour setup on them was peacetime armour. The Chally has upgraded combat armour on the front and sides during wartime this would have made a huge difference, unsure if you could do another with the upgraded???

[@AccessAccess]

Too bad about the cows, a lot of videogame rating boards don't allow any kind of violence against animals. So it may have been turned off in order to pass muster in those areas.

[@notsureyou]

So they don't use the most modern variant of the Leopard 2. Sounds like a fair comparison.....

[@johnbradshaw7525]

Leopard has 120mm smoothbore Rheinmetal gun

[@evo3s75]

2A4 has the L/44, from 2A6 on they use the L/55 (and L/55A1)

[@MrRldunton]

While the guns on the panzer 4 and the Panthers six are both 75 mm it's a 75/48 versus a 75/70 on the panther

[@lordsqueak]

Hmm, Sabot is a shoe made of wood. When the french was unhappy about those new machines taking their jobs, they chucked the sabots into the machinery, thus the term saboteur. Seems a bit odd to be firing wooden shoes at tanks, but,, what do I know. ;)

[@Rover200Power]

Weren't the Tigers IIs firing at the same time as the Tiger Is? It looked like they were too closely packed together.

[@josephau2910]

I think of Cap like a new teacher at a school. Simba, Sock and everyone else (minus Kortana) are his toughest students. His attempts to control the class will ultimately cost him his sanity.

[@grimreapers]

They are naughty boys

[@DrDezaro]

You are doing it wrong. Most of these tanks are not designed to fight from an advancing position over flat terrain. They are supposed to fight from a hull down position. The have weak lower glacis armour.

[@tannersiebel]

It's not a war simulation, it's a test.

[@tiadiad]

You forgot Armata. It's ok. Sip your tea.

[@mrzoov3661]

9:01 this sentence would also describe American muscle cars pretty well

[@phil20_20]

How is this calculating results when it doesn't even know armor thickness?

[@drengrd]

I always amused in your video... hehehe... nice game always guys... the one that I like here is always have a science involved specially answering always the questions "What if" hehe

[@superflyguy4488]

Doesn't the Merkave have the engine at the front.

[@rubiconnn]

Yep, it's a good design. It adds a ton of protection to the crew from attacks in the most likely direction and they know it but I don't think crew survivability is a big design factor for US tanks.

[@brandondavis7777]

@@rubiconnn The US prioritizes crew safety and survivability.

[@LondonSteveLee]

None of these old tanks would even see a Challenger as they are picked off one by one - ask the Iraqis! The surrendering Iraqi tank commander thought he was being hit by some new secret air-launched anti-tank weapon. He simply refused to accept he was being engaged (accurately - one shot kills!) by other tanks firing 3-4 miles away. He was - the tanks were Challengers.

[@Thurgosh_OG]

The longest tank on tank combat kill was a Challenger destroying an Iraqi tank on 26 February 1991from a distance of 5.1km (approx. 3 miles).

[@krostouin]

The gaz engine of the Leclerc is adapted from the Gazelle

[@grimreapers]

Cool

[@samanazimi5087]

Remember that winwing technology is your ultimate hardware solution :) 102

[@grimreapers]

agree

[@gmanadventurer8892]

Let's all remember, DCS is a game, a fun game, but not an accurate or true realistic game.

[@grimreapers]

agree

[@Tetemovies4]

I worked in the defense Industry (and still kinda do to some extent) and was shown the simulators (for formation not qualification and systems integration) for one of the vehicle that was part of the same program as the vehicle i worked on and i can tell you that on the form, DCS doesn’t have anything to envy to the simulators that are actually used for the users’ formation. Obviously they don’t have access to the manufacturer’s industrial document so their models are bound to have inaccuracies and missing information but it’s far closer to the real thing than your comment implies.

[@hansmiseur3025]

Panther does not have the same gun as the panzer 4, just the same caliber. Panther's gun is vastly superior when it comes to armor penetration.

[@3idraven714]

75mm/L54 vs 75mm/L70….the Tigers the same 88mm/L54 (Tgr1) 88mm/L70 (Tgr2)

[@MrCooper89]

I don't know how one would even figure the thickness of the armor on a tank without having some way to cut and then measure it.

[@KaterChris]

Germany and France are planning to develop their Leopard2/Leclerc-successor together...imagine what that thing's gonna be like :-)

[@AviViljoen]

And then, there will be no doubt about what is the best tank in the world.

[@painedkillerk9]

There was an abrams that got hit by 50 rps in one day in iraq. No way its accurate in any way

[@BADGER_117]

Abrams are still manually loaded that's why they fire slower

[@clonecommando2125]

they fire faster actually a auto loaded one take 10 to 15 seconds when the Abrams take about 5 second due to the years of training also almost never jam

[@BADGER_117]

@@clonecommando2125 well yea but apparently the game developers didnt take that into account

[@frankbarnwell____]

M3 with the Cadillac engines. Yes, 2. But anyhoo. In a drag race. Okay. Don't ask Simba for a light!

[@thejackal5099]

I don't have CA but from what I hear it's certainly not on par with Steel Beasts. Does it even have more basis on reality than Battlefield games?

[@keith4960]

"Point blankey wanky" -Super Cap

[@deltic5514]

there is a you tube drag race between a Challenger2 and Le clerc. Chally won

[@grimreapers]

cool

[@dylanwoods6173]

King tigers had a 105mm main cannon, not an 88....

[@Zuemmel]

Uhm no. That's just wrong

[@kaox44]

The German Leo2 and US Abrams are twins. Both are the best tank compared to every other tank but the Abrams has the most successful real combat.

[@Rokaize]

Combat against whom? T55s in Iraq? Both these tanks haven’t fought any adversary from their same generation. The saudis used the abrams in Yemen and look how that turned out. Same with turkey and their leopards. It’s very hard to rank any of these vehicles in real life. Lots of factors involved.

[@kaox44]

@@Rokaize Wrong, T72 in Iraq. The Saudis didn't fight any MBT, they sat the tank in open area for easy target. Same with the LEO in Turkey.

[@PresidentEvil]

@@Rokaize T-55?? 🤣Go read a history book you jackass

[@Rokaize]

@@kaox44 Iraq had very few t72s. And they were mostly t72As. Which is ancient by comparison to western tanks. Exactly, the abrams and leopard in those conflicts were used very poorly and suffered unacceptable losses by our standards. That’s the whole point. It’s very hard to gauge how good they are. I

[@recoilrob324]

The Abrams model accuracy and rate of fire were really bad.....a good gunner and loader can hit targets about every three seconds with about 95% hit rate. Modeled like this....as soon as the tanks came into view over the horizon in about 15 seconds they all would be dead. When you can hit targets beyond their engagement range....stand off and snipe...then proceed.

[@Thurgosh_OG]

Definitely poor tactics used here but then Grim Reapers are Fly Boys not Tankers.

[@collewis6681]

The longest tank kill. Is held by a challenger 2. Over 5,000 metres

[@tomsoki5738]

A prediction before it starts… Chieftain is going to get destroyed. If you used a newer model Chieftain it would do better but the Mk3 is ancient. There is actually a video of a LeClerc doing a drag race against a Chally 2 and the Challenger was WAY quicker so I would take the rest of the race results with a grain of salt.

[@joshuafelder2701]

If it's the same video I saw, there were two races. The first was a "cold start" where they had to start their engines then run. The Challenger 2 won that by bus lengths. The second was from a stop with running engines and the Leclerc won by a similar amount.

[@jugi97b]

"improved cow damage model" haahahah😂. Didnt see this one in the changelog😂

[@grimreapers]

lol

[@darrylsmith2932]

Panther had a 75mm L70 main gun, PKW 4 had a 75mm L48 main gun at best application

[@Benjamin-fq7nm]

Abrams has a manual loader so the gunner getting tired is probably simulated

[@charlesroussel2036]

Thank you simba

[@paulnoble2001]

The two M1A2were facing to the left and ignored the enemy tank to the right and exposed their side armor. An experienced tank crew wouldn't have made such a rookie mistake. That's why tanks keep moving they're turret back and forth to check where the enemy is.

[@UD2]

Nice video. But to really answer your confusion on the Chinese tanks, unfortunately you got the wrong one. The main battle tank of the Chinese army is the ZTZ99 family. The ZTZ96 family is not meant for the front line.

[@fleetboss8673]

Why there isn't type90 MBT

[@paulnoble2001]

That and real tank crews communicate with each other as well.

[@vat8367]

modern tank muzzle velocity about 1600 m/s, old tanks about 900 m/s

[@LiberNull777]

Wtf? Why u use outdated Leo 2A4? What a bs comparison xD

[@bobshelton37]

If you think the Leclerc was fast you should try it in reverse.

[@MG_Steve]

Simba Shooting Cap was honestly the funniest thing I've seen in a GR video to date! If only there was a compilation video of such events ;)

[@SamAshworth91]

I was giggling for about 5 mins afterwards, properly broke me.

[@elmo2you]

@@SamAshworth91 Likewise over here ... made my day

[@angelarch5352]

I laughed way more than I should have at that :D

[@Wyomingchief]

Yeah they definitely need a compilation of all the time somebody kills cap. I went back and rewatch that at least three times. In the subtle movement as a turret is hilarious. The first time I watched it I thought oh no he's going to do it😂😂

[@jasong3442]

I've drag raced a Leclerc in a M1A1 in real life. That thing is fast.. like it wasn't even close it just shot ahead of us and kept on going. She's a lot lighter than you'd think and that's where she gets her speed from I believe.

[@jasong3442]

Okay now I've watched the whole video and that was hilarious. Its best summed up by that the tanks are just fine, this was just an example of tremendously bad tactics; also some poor damage modeling. All tanks are weak on the sides, top, and rear and people have spent the last 100 years coming up with all sorts of anti tank options, no one is invulnerable and those are just the facts of life. Modern tanks draw their advantage from being able to deliver more precise kinetic energy at a much longer ranges in addition to having superior armor and mobility. Tankers will always orient their armor to face the threat and peak over terrain when possible to limit their exposure to incoming fire. rather than just charge and get destroyed. A more fair test for every tank involved would be for them to stay on line but to creep forward till each successive row of tank was within range and then have them stop and eliminate the targets. This would also test the max effective ranges of each tank. Also fun fact, the Leo and the Abrams use the exact same main gun. Modern Sabot rounds would melt through a Panzers armor; it wouldn't even present a challenge. Fun test boys, apparently the Leo just doesn't give a fuck lol.

[@reefta]

@@jasong3442 true that, but it would make a boring video to watch tanks fires from 2km away for an hour or so.

[@bongodrumzz]

The Leclerc is probably even quicker in reverse in real life lol

[@bazej1080]

It has very good hydro pneumatic suspension for the smooth ride on uneven terrain.

[@warbuzzard7167]

@@reefta I doubt such a battle would have taken 4 minutes, forget an hour! IIRC Abrams MBTs were sniping T72s in the Iraq desert for 3-4k meters; one shot a T-72 through a sand dune. Another got a double hit with one round!

[@johanj3674]

A Leopard 2A4 isn't very modern now is it? Also Sweden hasn't used it in many years, only the Strv 122 now.

[@ericstefko4852]

I agreed they should have used the A6

[@plushiie_]

its young at heart! ;-;

[@Roguepaladin72]

The 122 is based on the L2A4

[@92HazelMocha]

@@Roguepaladin72 L2A5*, the A4 was before the arrowhead turret.

[@vberl9573]

@@Roguepaladin72 L2A5 not the L2A4

[@russellknight26]

Why not Leopard 2A5 or Leopard 2A6M they are the more common and extensively modified upgrade variants and far superior to the 2A4. I am sure everyone would like if they added the 2A7+ to DCS one day.

[@Mgaming61]

yeah, I'm a little sad for that reason :(

[@Thisandthat8908]

@@arnor4214 you would certainly hope so. However i would imagine is has more armor and is heavier and possibly slower?

[@jamesscott6917]

Remember that all tanks are a balance between armor, weapons and mobility. Other considerations are repairability, cost to operate and upgrade ability. For instance, the Abrams was built with upgrade in mind and the tank of today looks pretty similar to the original M-1 but is practically a different tank. The antennae on the Merkava are for the active protection system that protects against ATGM’s and RPG’s. There’s nothing wrong with the armor on the tanks, the game is still imperfect.

[@markm7335]

I was crying laughing when simba shot cap. You could almost see the tank smirk.

[@grimreapers]

I was NOT happy

[@jblanken]

American tanker here....fun fact: the Leopard II and the M1A1/A2 Abrams all use the same main gun - the M256 made by Rheinmetall.

[@92HazelMocha]

Uhhhhh man idk how to tell you this, the M246 is an L44, Leopard 2's switched to the L55 back in 06-07ish.

[@thomasroth4695]

Lmfaoo. I hear you bro. I was an M-1 mech. The 44/55 same gun the 55 slightly longer ( gain mussel velocity) uses the SAME ammo. Wait until they find out the armor is made in Britain. They may no longer be Krupp but they damn sure do still make the worlds best guns. 63G here.

[@92HazelMocha]

@@thomasroth4695 Ooooo don't say Krupp, Germans in the comments ain't gonna like that lol

[@M3PH11]

@@thomasroth4695 Wait till they find out the armour made in britain is the previous gen and we didn't tell them we had something better. one word. Dorchester.

[@jblanken]

@@92HazelMocha I do know how to tell you this....I'm old. HAHAHAHA! Thanks for the heads up though.

[@toddw6716]

Not very accurate, the M1 is deadly at long range so the aiming system doesn’t appear to be accurate. They would have wiped them out at long range. I suspect these tanks are not so accurate but it is a flight sim

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

They claim they're trying to make a Digital Combat Simulator but their prime focus is flight. I believe the M1 is deadly at range when stationary, but not sure about moving and of course a video game can never be that realistic anyway. :)

[@3idraven714]

I think it was the ammo they used…sabot is great against composite heavy armor…but non composite pure armor they might have done better with a heat type AT round…I think they used that with the Chicom tank and the hit ratio seemed better until the Panther 75mm/L70 high velocity sent them all to Mao’s tomb