Why is Abrams tank the best choice for Ukraine?

Рет қаралды 459,694

Күн бұрын

Play Call of War for FREE on PC, iOS or Android:
💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/wnt...
Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!
This video talks about the pros and cons of Abrams tanks for Ukraine, and compares them to other types, mostly Leopard 2s. It explains why Abrams, despite their inefficiencies, are the best choice.
0:00 - Intro
1:35 - Which Abrams variant for Ukraine?
2:55 - Abrams' armor and gun
4:15 - Mobility comparison
5:15 - Gas Turbine pros and cons
7:05 - Fuel consumption
9:25 - Training the tank crews
9:55 - How many Abrams does US have?
10:53 - Refurbishing older tanks
11:28 - US refurbishment capacity
12:33 - Germany's Leopard 2s
13:30 - Condition of Leo 2 tanks
14:17 - Spanish Leo 2 tanks
14:45 - Number of stored Leo 2s
15:22 - Abrams and Leo 2 numbers compared
16:29 - Refurbishment of Leo 2s
17:00 - When might the tanks arrive?
17:51 - More on training the crews
18.35 - Politics of it all
19:55 - Finances and costs
20:35 - How many tanks does Ukraine need and have?
21:49 - Conclusion
22:39 - Outro
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules:
- become our Patron here: / binkov
- or become a member of the channel directly on KZfaq:
/ @binkov
If you want to buy a Binkov plush doll, get it here!
crowdmade.com/collections/bin...
You can also browse for other Binkov merch, like T-Shirts, via the store at our website, binkov.com
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / @binkov
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov

Пікірлер: 5 400

@Binkov Жыл бұрын

Play Call of War for FREE on PC, iOS or Android: 💥 callofwar.onelink.me/q5L6/wntjg3gg Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days!

@prezmrmthegreatiinnovative3235 Жыл бұрын

NATO and EU countries aswell as other friendly nations should send WW1 INTERWAR WW2 COLD WAR and modern present current day tanks and equipments to UKRAINE aswell as LOTS LOADS OF VOLUNTEERS work/labor forces and manpower and etc

@FireBeam Жыл бұрын

@@prezmrmthegreatiinnovative3235 Stop being a re-tard. You're acting like Bush Junior, wanting to go into Iraq because Bush Senior didn't. Or maybe you have nostalgia for Cold War tropes. Either way, this whole shitshow is STUPID.

@FireBeam Жыл бұрын

Binkov, you are part of the problem now. There is no "WINNING" against Russia. You should know, better than most, that this is a red line for Russia.

@michaelm3691 Жыл бұрын

Since your financial comparison was to make a fairness argument against Europe, it should have considered: - Europe provide more non-military financial aid which is crucial to keep the country running - US gets returns from both their own military aid and much of the EU's since their economy produces it (or produces the replacements) - Europe feeding and housing millions of refugees - Europe creating a far worse self-inflicted wound from the sanctions, particularly on energy where US profits from LNG Overall, Europe is paying far more. As a European, I have no problem with this, but it is unfortunate that you're feeding right into the bs of those who'd happily leave Ukraine in the hands of mass murderers in the name of "peace". Other than that, it was a great video as always.

@kashmirha Жыл бұрын

Sorry about the critic, but I think most of the people will get lost in all the nitty gritty details. In my opinion it is too much talk, too detailed analysis. Mayve there is no other way to present it, or just thats the way you like it. Anyway, an honest feedback.

@just_a_turtle_chad Жыл бұрын

One of the best things about Binkov's videos is the wildly toxic comment section full of Russian and Chinese trolls and the people arguing with them.

@omjeepragya4113 Жыл бұрын

Wow you are fast..

@thomasgellos1732 Жыл бұрын

I beg to differ. There are still some people with Common Sense

@IONindustries627 Жыл бұрын

That's kinda Xenophobic...

@davidescalise9342 Жыл бұрын

@@IONindustries627 Xenophobia poggers

@AlreadyTakenTag Жыл бұрын

Ikr. And if we were all put on a real battlefield, every poor fellow in this comment section (including me) would probably just stare at each other awkwardly as no one here has the guts to actually fight. And I see you there typing "oh but I am a fierce patriot of my X fatherland and I'm ready to die for it. And by the way (some random saying about war crimes committed by other countries)" Let's all be real here. Wars are just human beings killing human beings due to the utter stupidity of human beings.

@teddy.d174 Жыл бұрын

Something that should be mentioned as well, is the fact that M-1’s have been stored in the desert, which is very dry and keeps them like new. Many other nations don’t have that capability. Excellent video, Mr. Binkov.

@Predator42ID Жыл бұрын

Makes you wonder if the US could make money off of that by offering to store Nato tanks in better environments.

@cogitoergosum1474 Жыл бұрын

@seththomas3418 good point but they will probably only pay 1% of what we ask.

@thatravendude Жыл бұрын

@@Predator42ID only issue is that shipping a tank is pretty expensive. Not a horrible idea though, we are also on the other side of an ocean and hard to hit. Not to mention that few would survive an all out war with us, so probably would not try anything. The US could even justify holding allied stockpiles hear as part of our national defense reserves.

@thatravendude Жыл бұрын

Didn't even think of that. Good point.

@nibblrrr7124 Жыл бұрын

@@Predator42ID [toby jones voice] "You know you ain't gonna use that APC, why keep it all around your house, bring it down here to my house... In my yard, I don't care" :D

@pahtar7189 Жыл бұрын

Another advantage the Abrams has is that Poland has ordered 250 new M1A2 SEP v3 tanks, so there will be maintenance facilities right next door to Ukraine. Having pledged Leopards to Ukraine, they've also contracted for 116 ex-US Marines Abrams M1A1 tanks to be delivered right away, so they will be able to maintain both major M1 variants.

@grahamelliott9506 Жыл бұрын

poland's terrain is more ideal for the abrams than ukraine's - and as a MBT the abrams is very ideal for jobs like plugging or pushing / pulling the front line in the polish gap they make more sense in poland than ukraine imo, a 70+ tonner in the ukranian mud season is a turret that can't turn its frontal armor as soon as it goes off road, waste of an asset and easy target

@lguill05 Жыл бұрын

I know they have a 'training academy' not too sure if it's a full blown maintenance facility. That would be strategically ideal for NATO and forward deployment.

@Julianna.Domina Жыл бұрын

@@grahamelliott9506Weight doesn't mean much; it's down to ground pressure, and the Abrahms is pretty good in that regard. Poland and Ukraine both famously share similar flat terrain.

@rburns9730 Жыл бұрын

@@lguill05 They don't have the repair facility up and running yet the contract to implement Abrams integration is for 5 years. They will be counting on the refurbished nature of their new tanks to hold them over until they get up to speed. I seriously doubt they'll be able to competently repair serious battle damage for a year or more.

@nehronghamil4352 Жыл бұрын

They're gonna need recovery rigs not maintenance Watch "ABRAMS Tanks destroyed.flv" on KZfaq kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rMCElsZ3qpbdaZc.html Watch "Dead USA tanks must see. Do not in the U.S. how to make good tanks!" on KZfaq kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rrSHoKlinsyZqGw.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a7uZhKqh3b-3f3U.html

@Metalblowing Жыл бұрын

Ukrainian here. Tanks are a big limiting factor for us. Paraphrasing one of my friends from the trenches near Kramatorsk: " russian piece of sh*t gear shows up (old tank) and starts shelling our position for 20-30 minutes, then just runs away". They have to wait for artillery to blow that tank up, it takes time for artillery to coordinate. Also when you talk about storming positions, difficult to do that without proper armor support. We have a big gap in armored vehicles. Just yesterday one of my friends was showing how they used Lanos car (shitty sedan) to traverse the battlefield. So tanks, armored vehicles, humvees, all is needed.

@MrBahjatt Жыл бұрын

They still drive the Daewoo/Chevrolet Lanos? I haven't heard of that car in ages!

@MrBahjatt Жыл бұрын

Ukraine (ironically like Russia) has too much metal and not enough flesh. Precise artillery is in short supply, the HIMARS are being used to hit strategic targets (and are being fed coordinates by ELINT/SIGNT) and tactical support artillery is lacking. Even when it does come it lacks precision: the Russians use brute force numbers, the Ukrainians don't have the sheer size and volume of artillery; so they have to fight 'smarter' where the Russians fight 'harder' and so on.

@cacogenicist Жыл бұрын

Have any of those Canadian _Senator_ APCs showed up yet? Obviously Bradley's will be extremely useful. I would be curious what your buddies think about those Strykers that are on the way. Слава Україні!

@Metalblowing Жыл бұрын

@@cacogenicist pretty sure that most high quality vehicles will go to sso (special units). Most brigades won't see those machines. Currently my friends is coordinating polish Crabs, 777, and some m100 guns. I forgot the name of those M artillery pieces by they are from WW2 era, US made. Says the quality and accuracy is insane for something that old.

@Metalblowing Жыл бұрын

@@MrBahjatt not sure if they're still producing but we are still using. And yeah, they literally count every shell. E.g., they shoot only after confirmation and video stream. There is a 2-3-4 teams working on the ground and in the air. Once the target is confirmed, they shell. One of the reasons why this basic 777 artillery is so deadly in Ukrainian's hands is that every shell counts. Dudes make sure that it hits where it's needed.

@jdiluigi Жыл бұрын

Lets not forget. At a US maintenance base in Iraq they were able to swap out an entire power pack of an Abrams in 20 minutes. Very modular build set up for easy maintenance.

@Dirty_Dumb_NAFO_Scum Жыл бұрын

Any abrams maintenance depot in Ukraine won't be left standing by August if there were any to begin with. If Russia can annihilate 200 foreign legion troops at the edge of Ukraine's western border, Russia can do that to any mechanical depot as well.

@gumballgtr1478 Жыл бұрын

@@Dirty_Dumb_NAFO_Scumidk man Russia is prob to incompetent to do thay

@mattharcla Жыл бұрын

I guess maintenance well away from the front, or can it be mobile?

@mattharcla Жыл бұрын

@@Dirty_Dumb_NAFO_Scum It will be well covered.

@chaosXP3RT Жыл бұрын

@@Dirty_Dumb_NAFO_Scum I don't trust anything Russia says. They claimed to destroy a HIMARS on top of a 3 story building

@alexei3829 Жыл бұрын

My brother is Russia tank man and he say empty ERA blocks are good place to hide snacks from rest of crew. Also say track maintenance very hard for them because retreating infantry get stuck in road wheel. Sorry for bad english.

@jeffhall4228 Жыл бұрын

Bless you. Slava Ukraini

@dgart7434 Жыл бұрын

I hope your brother avoids getting sent to the front. No one deserves to die in this pointless war.

@mattsmith4027 Жыл бұрын

It is heartening to know that whoever you are, wherever you are, whatever terrible things you might be doing, up to and including regularly cleaning the corpses of your crushed comrades out of your tank's tracks. That other people will still eat your snacks if you don't hide them.

@theguy1633 Жыл бұрын

The Abrams was literally designed to fight Soviet tanks in Eastern Europe. I don’t see all the surprise lol

@slavicemperor8279 Жыл бұрын

It'a still a terrible choice for Ukraine lol. Since no country except Poland is fielding an Abrams in the entire Europe it's bad for NATO arms standardization and it's way harder to provide mechanics and instructors than for Leopard 2

@carterjones8126 Жыл бұрын

@@slavicemperor8279 NATO already has the necessary infrastructure in place to repair, and maintain Leopard 2's, and Abrams tanks, over the border in Poland. Ukraine's already sending their aircraft abroad to be repaired; there's nothing to say they won't do the same for their western-made tanks.

@slavicemperor8279 Жыл бұрын

@@carterjones8126 Leopard yes, Abrams not so much. It will be substantially harder to get replacement parts for it than the Leo

@profesercreeper Жыл бұрын

@@slavicemperor8279 the main issue is having to ship those parts rather than lack of availability. See how germany treats it equipment I would say the abrams has a much larger pool of parts and the US can easily ramp up production compared to germany. Also there is some parts that can be used such as the gun and ammunition.

@talldude1412 Жыл бұрын

@@slavicemperor8279 you act like you are unaware of the last 78rs of US military forward deployment in Europe. There are plenty of facilities available to fix the US army's MBT in that theater

@deliriousdavies7552 Жыл бұрын

One thing that surprises me is how few are mentioning the M88 recovery vehicles that are being sent in the American armor package. These recovery vehicles are built on old M60 chassis and have tremendous hauling capacity. Their A-frame boom crane has a 35-ton lift capacity, which to my knowledge is more than any other recovery vehicle in the Ukrainian Army. Someone mentioned that Ukraine now has the most diverse tank fleet in the world. This vehicle, procured in large enough numbers, will go a long way in allowing Ukraine to keep its armored vehicles in good repair and on the battlefield. Honestly, they are more valuable than the Abrams we are sending.

@americameinyourmouth9964 Жыл бұрын

I read the US wants make sure Ukraine can either recover or if necessary use demolition charges on disabled Abrams. They’ve been ordered to prevent them from being captured by Russians at all costs.

@ArchOfficial Жыл бұрын

@@americameinyourmouth9964 Source? Also that is normal doctrine for almost every military.

@americameinyourmouth9964 Жыл бұрын

@@ArchOfficial It was a Crux video “M88 Hercules for Ukraine”, at 5 minutes 10 seconds in “Ukrainian Troops under strict orders to destroy high tech Western equipment”. Reuters and others mentioned it too because Russia has put bounties on captured foreign equipment. 60k for the Estonian Themis autonomous vehicle and 70k for the Abrams.

@lguill05 Жыл бұрын

I don't think repair and maintenance is on their priority list unfortunately. They barely procure any resources to actually salvage equipment. I think Ukraine has the mentality the west will just arm them. Lots of vehicles Ukrainian troops destroy instead of salvaging.

@ArchOfficial Жыл бұрын

@@lguill05 What`They have close to a thousand in capture. They only really destroy stuff that is not realistic to recover.

@Curmudgeon2 Жыл бұрын

over 20 years ago I was walking down a road and I kept hearing the occasional squeaking noise......finally I turned around and an M1 was about 20 behind me going at walking speed. I could not hear the engine at all.

@cavalryscout9519 Жыл бұрын

The Abrams and Leopard II aren't exactly competitors - they are both offshoots of the MBT 70 project, and share major expendable parts like tracks and gun barrels, and the Abrams uses metric hardware (nuts and bolts) that is commonly available in Europe. Since both tanks were designed to fight with mixed NATO forces in Germany, both can be supported at the field level by most NATO militaries. The parts of the M1 which are unique or complex are meant to be quickly swapped out as a module, with the damaged module being sent to a rear depot area for repair. The M1 is one of the easier US vehicles for a foreign military to integrate, and most of the difficulties supporting it would be true of any heavy tank.

@mattharcla Жыл бұрын

Thanks, I now get why our Australian army uses them...though the weight troubles me.

@forrestsory1893 Жыл бұрын

I'm disappointed to hear that. Competition drives quality. If they were developed from different tech an evaluation could be made to see which is better and a new better 3rd tank would come from this war.

@mattharcla Жыл бұрын

@@forrestsory1893 I see your point. However, interchangeable parts, rounds etc is how you win logistics....as Rommel observed, in his glowing praise of US standardization.

@Just_another_turtle Жыл бұрын

The good thing about Leopard and Abrams is that they use the same ammo, since they use the exact same main gun.

@yarnickgoovaerts Жыл бұрын

And they’re both to heavy to operate in Ukraine

@Nick-wh4jt Жыл бұрын

Yep well spotted turtle that’s right champ why don’t you join the military I hear they’re hiring

@voidtempering8700 Жыл бұрын

They both do not use the same ammo, and there are slight differences between the guns, namely chamber pressure, which is why they use different ammo. M829a3 cannot be fired from the L/44.

@kwestionariusz1 Жыл бұрын

@@voidtempering8700 but from L/55 yes

@voidtempering8700 Жыл бұрын

@@kwestionariusz1 The L/55 is only on the 2a6, the majority being sent are A4s and A5s, very few A6s are being sent.

@academicdeaneducation6671 Жыл бұрын

This is a result of spending less that 2% of their GDP on defense. The US has been harping in this for a lonnnnnnnng time. I wonder if the Europeans have learned their lesson?

@avegromek Жыл бұрын

nah, fuck it. we just call america to come and help us. trust me its better to spent that 2% for hookers and drugs

@foilhat1138 Жыл бұрын

yeah and spending 2% is a triumph, only 2% and you can ensure your safety, historically countries would spend damn near everything on defense

@vepraksoldat2963 Жыл бұрын

Or don't orchestrate coups in country

@N7-WAR-HOUND Жыл бұрын

@@foilhat1138 i think we’ll be going back to historical Norms pretty soon here. WW1 Germany had two million men mustered on trains to the front conducting combat operations within 72 hours, in 1914, we should Bow before our forbearers in awe and respect, Germany is struggling today to send 14 sophisticated tin cans

@scottkrater2131 Жыл бұрын

The USMC used M-60's until long after the Army retired them. The USMC recently decided to retire their tank units. There must be some of them somewhere.

@donchaput8278 Жыл бұрын

As always, Logistics is the biggest piece of a war. Getting equipment where it's needed, even if it's not the best equipment, is always vital. I would take 500 good tanks in one or two months rather than get 30 awesome tanks once a month for 3 years. This is why military's are constantly trying to make a choice as to how good is good enough with a weapons platform. Having it all can cost way too much and give you too few numbers.

@scottkrater2131 Жыл бұрын

I've trained with diesel powered M-60's and they were extremely loud and noisy compared to the gas turbines on the M-1's.

@grizzles9652 Жыл бұрын

Just one correction, the Abrams engine runs negligibly hotter. If you placed both tanks side by side its almost unnoticeable, really the only drawback to a turbine is the fuel consumption. Not to mention the turbine performs better in cold environments which is why the T-80 and STRV-103 both had gas turbines. Granted the STRV-103 had both a diesel and gas turbine. But the turbine was installed to help with cold starts.

@thatravendude Жыл бұрын

Source? Not doubting your info but first time I've heard that the heat difference was so small. In fact I've never seen data on engine temps for either. Good point on the cold starts though didn't think of that.

@texasray5237 Жыл бұрын

The turbines may be only negligibly hotter than a diesel if the the two tanks are parked side by side idling. But if they are moving, the turbine will be twice as hot as the diesel. All that extra fuel gets converted into extra heat. And the turbines' better performance when cold is counterbalanced by their much more detectable heat signature. Heat seeking missiles will always spot the turbines first. That was true even in Iraq and is will be much more true in colder climates. The Abram's best function may be as kamikaze decoys to draw missile fire away from other, stealthier weapons.

@grizzles9652 Жыл бұрын

@@texasray5237 There is no such thing as anti tank heat seeking missiles, there are missiles that lock onto IR signatures but that is something different to what you are thinking of entirely. Also that is not how heat works, the Abrams does use more fuel but it also pulls in far more air and has a far more efficient cooling system then internal combustion diesel engines.

@texasray5237 Жыл бұрын

@@grizzles9652 No such thing as an anti-tank heat seeking missile? Do tell. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rsiYp9WVtKzQpps.html&ab_channel=DanPhillips As for the super efficient cooling system of the Abrams, yes that's true. But you seem to be confused about what that means. Refrigerators have very efficient cooling systems too. They cool the interior, but they transfer the heat to the air outside the fridge. The only way to cool something is to remove heat from somewhere and put it somewhere else. As that super-efficient cooling system of the Abrams removes heat from the engine it transfers that heat to the air by means of a radiator and a fan. And that radiator and the super-hot gas it expels make a big bright infrared target tadpole to guide in those heat-seeking antitank rockets you don't believe in.

@grizzles9652 Жыл бұрын

@Texas Ray you literally don't know what your talking about and it shows because the video you linked isn't a heat speaking missile but a wire guided one.

@cipwreck68 Жыл бұрын

I moved a few Abrams in the motor pool and the civilians that ran the yard would yell at us if we had to move them more than once because it was 7 gallons of fuel just to start it up

@ice-xv1hi Жыл бұрын

The most impressive thing about Russia is the number of bots they have on YT.

@fahimrind9714 Жыл бұрын

if only their actual army had the same logistics as their online army this fight would've been over in 2 days unlike the 2 weeks it's taking.

@Momusinterra Жыл бұрын

The number of comic book-reading, wargame-playing, finger-sniffing, booger- nibbling nerds who support Zelenski is also fairly large, but none of them are impressive.

@keysersoze1855 Жыл бұрын

wow, imagine being so narrow minded that having a difference of opinion against the narrative immediately makes you a Russian bot..

@GM-id9nu Жыл бұрын

@Keyser Soze he was being polite. He also wanted to say you would have to be a complete fool too

@shanepryor8705 Жыл бұрын

@@Momusinterra Just swap "Zelenski" for "Putin" & I'm certain you're our man, eh Reader.

@Liberty_or_Ded Жыл бұрын

The Abrams is best at three things: Guzzling fuel, going from 0 to 60 ASAP, and being available. It doesn't have the biggest gun or the most defenses or best pressure ratio, but if you can keep her watered, she can get up and MOVE when you need her to move, and there's so many of them, and refurbishment is so simple because of the modularity of its design, you can count on there being another of her available when she has to rest.

@seeleagent Жыл бұрын

Gas turbine isn’t nearly as fuel hungry as people make it out to be. In the original interations sure, but not anymore lol.

@123asap6 Жыл бұрын

newer gas trubines like the LV100-5 can achieve 50% greater fuel efficiency than the AGT-1500. They are shelving it for now since there is no need to have it but given recent gas prices... lol.

@BenDover-pm5oh Жыл бұрын

According to Douglas McGregor who was an Tank commander of an Abrams. An Abrams need to be refuled every 7-8 hours beause of the turbine, it cant Idle like Leos Diesel.

@dominiksoukal Жыл бұрын

@@BenDover-pm5oh that's why the have APUs

@123asap6 Жыл бұрын

@@BenDover-pm5oh I honestly dont know why they decided to stop implementing the Lv100-5 turbine since the fuel savings over just 3-5 years would have more than made up for cost of switching the fleet from then on out to the new engine.

@dnguyen9747 Жыл бұрын

The level of military expertise on display in the comment section is astounding, unbelievable, earth shattering

@Deathbomb9 Жыл бұрын

Exhaust temps of the Challenger2 and Leo2 are measured right after start up and at the exhaust tip. After running for a few minutes those temps rise to about 1500-1550°F. The temp you cited for Abrams is at the exit of the engine and doesn't factor the fact that the exhaust is mixed with air passing through the radiator for the trans. It is then also lowered by passing through a grate that also mixes it with outside air bring the exhaust temp down to about 1400°F. But none of this actually matters because thermals will see the tank even if it hasn't been running and was simply out in the sun most the day. It will see it even if it's in shade. Thermals detect temperature differences, even by just a few degrees. So it really doesn't matter how hot or cool the exhaust is. They practice recognizing the thermal signature of different vehicles to tell friend from foe.

@thedausthed Жыл бұрын

The Abrams has a multi fuel engine and was originally run by the US on diesel, Sweden found the Abrams easier to maintain than the Leo 2 (when they conducted trials back in the 90's) and the rated load of a bridge is not it's collapse weight, it is a safe maximum it can take 24/7 365 without additional wear.

@dextercochran4916 Жыл бұрын

Russia: *gives more tanks to Ukraine than anyone USA: Your terms are acceptable.

@megaknightisgaygay1144 Жыл бұрын

Ukraine lost majority of the 2,000+ tanks they started with

@eannamcnamara9338 Жыл бұрын

I can't help but feel bad for the poor Russian mobiks in a T-55 which are going to get fucking obliterated by an abrams

@dansegelov305 Жыл бұрын

They're already getting obliterated by consumer drones and fire extinguisher rpg's. I think the Russian's best hope when NATO tanks are on the field will be that so many russians die that the Ukrainians become a bit depressed.

@rikulappi9664 Жыл бұрын

FYI. Finland has no Leopard 2s "mothballed ". The "stored" ones are actually parked in dry well ventilated underground bunkers, fuel tanks tipped, batteries full, ammo stored nearby / loaded. They are ready to go the moment their pre-designated resevist crews climb in and start the motors. That is how tanks are stored in Finland.

@hansmeyer7225 Жыл бұрын

So you could spend some? Maybe a small number?

@theJellyjoker Жыл бұрын

well, the Abrams was designed to take out Russian armor so...

@Ak-kx5yx Жыл бұрын

...so it doesn't matter on the battlefield, because tanks are destroyed mainly by artillery, planes, mines, anti-tank rockets. Abrams tanks will never see a Russian tank - chances are slim. These are battlefield stats. What can 30 Abramses do on the battlefield? Nothing.

@missk1697 Жыл бұрын

Tanks main role is not countering other tanks, even Binkov said it lmao

@dwavenminer Жыл бұрын

@@missk1697 You'd still want your MBTs to be able to counter the opposing MBTs as during operations it is not unlikely that you will encounter opposing MBTs that will need to be taken care of... However, your overall point is valid, overall quality of integration with supporting assets is almost always more important, not only because, you will more often usually not encounter opposing MBTs, but also because sometimes supporting assets will be better placed to deal with them themselves...

@Just_A_Random_Desk Жыл бұрын

The F-22 was designed to fight the most advanced planes on the planet and it's only fought a balloon.

@thatravendude Жыл бұрын

@@Just_A_Random_Desk sad... True... And also kinda irrelevant to the current discussion...

@lookingforsomething Жыл бұрын

As a Finn I can tell you that at the moment we have pledged three of our hundred tanks in storage so far. Being located on the Russian border we are quite careful to significantly affect our defence capability. Personally I think every single piece of equipment we can send to Ukraine is an investment in to everyone else's security.

@cptromero5595 Жыл бұрын

Why exactly? How is it security for everyone else?

@mr.masquer Жыл бұрын

@@cptromero5595 If the world let Ukraine fall, it means every nearby country have once again allowed Russia to attack its neighbors freely with little to no consequences.

@Piotrek7654321 Жыл бұрын

@@cptromero5595 Russia and the rest of the world must be taught that invading to conquer another country in XXI century is not beneficial and has heavy consequences. That's what will ensure relative peace.

@lookingforsomething Жыл бұрын

@@cptromero5595 The faster and especially the more thoroughly Russia is taught that invading other countries is morally wrong and also detrimental the safer everyone will be. Citizens of the EU, US even Russia and China. There are literally nearly no winners in this invasion. Least of all the people of Russia or Ukraine.

@salmandudayev8259 Жыл бұрын

@@lookingforsomething U sound like a propaganda victim - the Russians and Finland, I mean, wtf are you talking about? Maybe you should produce more diapers for Finland.

@dcg1976 Жыл бұрын

First video I've seen where someone understood the ralationship between torque and RPM's in regards to acceleration as it pertains to diesel vs. turbine. Too many people online shooting their mouths off about something they know nothing about.

@cmdr1911 Жыл бұрын

The issue with the Abrams turbine isn't that the maintenance is so much more extreme, but most mechanics don't work on turbine. While the average mechanic could use their previous experience on a new diesel engine, new training would be need for turbine. A hybrid turbine Abrams would a great step up, lets the turbine run at a constant speed, which turbine prefer. Battery only would allow for river crossing or silence operations (as silent as tanks get) for short duration.

@tomcarter1198 Жыл бұрын

"Average mechanics" don't work on the gas turbines. Turbines get shipped back to Anniston Army Depot and get repaired by technicians who only do gas turbine work. Anniston can also deploy the workforce, so they could set up a turbine repair shop in Poland and due depot level refurbishment just a few hundred miles from Ukraine. There has already been work on a joint tank depot in Poland.

@huntergatherer7796 Жыл бұрын

@@tomcarter1198 that costs money. Which makes it even more expensive to give ukraine Abrams tanks..

@oco8783 Жыл бұрын

Ukraine do have experience with turbines because of the T80

@madrooky1398 Жыл бұрын

For the middle and long term KMW the manufacturer of Leopard tanks says it can ramp up production to cold war numbers which was on two locations each a bit more than 1 tank per work day. The problem with that figure is a bureaucratic one. In Germany nobody is allowed to produce weapons without permit, and a permit can include volume, duration and exact specification of the produced weapon. And such a permit is not just given easily, it is likely tied to a concrete order for production and that is, as a german would say, "where the dog is buried". If the german government does not place a confident order that allows KWM to plan their production for a certain frame of time, it will likely also have an influence of foreign orders. because a customer prefers certainty in delivery times aswell and also as higher the numbers of ordered tanks are the better the price per unit. Its all tied together and really depends on a confindent decision making in Berlin. But the new minister of defense seems to be not a hesitant douche polititian, we will see how it turns out.

@713Tankbuster Жыл бұрын

My favorite Russian defense on their tanks is how good they are, yet can't prove it. How many T72s and T90s were lost to chechens with RPGs? When the US with their 1990s first generation tanks went up against T72s and T62s in Iraq they lost none to enemy fire. Only friendly fire incidents. Russia can't even get tanks right.

@pilotmanpaul Жыл бұрын

Wait wait wait, are you seriously comparing M1 Abrams against monkey model T-72s and T-62s that's by the way, not supported by air while the US has the entirely of NATO's airpower behind it. Like, Russian tanks are outright facing Javelins you know? Have an M1A2Sepv3 face a Javelin, it will explode the same as any other Russian tank.

@Feffdc Жыл бұрын

Abrams got disabled too by RPGs The difference is that American tanks are far far more expensive

@neon.kalash3115 Жыл бұрын

@@Feffdc and used not retardedly

@foilhat1138 Жыл бұрын

@@pilotmanpaul the cream of the Russian army was lost early in the war, they ARE using the monkey models

@dominiksoukal Жыл бұрын

@@pilotmanpaul are you reterded or what? Monkey models is a pathetic excuse for shitty equipment. Were the T-90M lost money models?

@christiankirilov666 Жыл бұрын

Judging by the frenzied reaction of the ruzzian trolls, sending both tanks is a damn good idea.

@AA-il8ee Жыл бұрын

You've been tricked into thinking Russia is going to lose. That's sad because Ukraine is going to fall and your going to support it unknowingly 😭

@fasterthandragons7908 Жыл бұрын

@@AA-il8eenah

@master_shifu4208 Жыл бұрын

@@AA-il8ee lol sure ruski bot. Cope some more

@AA-il8ee Жыл бұрын

Yeah yeah the US can fight till the last Ukrainian, we get it. The thing is Russia isn't going to surrender so who wins this war of attrition if NATO doesn't send their own forces.. drum roll please and that's right idiots it's still Russia that gets Ukraine in the end not that I support it but you war mongers should revaluate your strategy and maybe call for peace or stop being pussies and get involved directly ✌️🤡

@AA-il8ee Жыл бұрын

@@master_shifu4208 put that pipe down ya fuckin burn out

@dansands8140 Жыл бұрын

The US Army and USMC have indicated on numerous occasions that they have enough Abrams to last forever, but shutting down the factory would lose some congressman's election, and so production never stopped. How many thousands do you want, Ukraine?

@Idahoguy10157 Жыл бұрын

Part of that to preserve the American industrial base.

@thatravendude Жыл бұрын

@@Idahoguy10157 true but would rather have a bit more R&D for new weapons rather than spitting out endless aged tanks. The inertia is largely for the reason the OP said.

@Idahoguy10157 Жыл бұрын

@@thatravendude … I’m not personally advocating building new Abrams. Rather explaining the best reason behind sustaining some manufacturing. To keep the skilled labor employed at this.

@VisibilityFoggy Жыл бұрын

@@Idahoguy10157 Just ask Canadians how they felt after the Arrow was canceled, and the talent pool and institutional knowledge of building combat aircraft disappeared. Sadly, the A220 saga has the chance to screw up their civilian aerospace industry.

@d3faulted2 Жыл бұрын

@@thatravendude even if you develop new weapons, if you completely loose your industrial base how are you going to get them into production?

@reddevilparatrooper Жыл бұрын

I used to be an M1A1 Abrams tank commander. What makes the M1 Abrams series lethal is it's crew. To fulfil it's role of firepower, speed, and protection. The crew has to be well trained meaning a crew of 4 has to know 3 levels above each of their crew positions to include leadership roles that have to be filled in. Technical aspects are second, a crew must be quick to see the enemy first and destroy them quickly. An armor company or troop work as a team to move, shoot, and communicate. That's what it takes to make a tank a weapon.

@herosstratos Жыл бұрын

And it's not just the crew of the tank that makes the difference, the command personnel up to at least G3 / Division must really understand what makes the difference between a modern main battle tank like the Abrams or Leopard 2 and tanks like the T72. If you use Abrams or Leopard 2s like the Russians use their T-72s, you will suffer (almost) exactly the same casualties as the Russians.

@reddevilparatrooper Жыл бұрын

@@herosstratos Yes planning and deployment is very essential.

@N7-WAR-HOUND Жыл бұрын

Europe has been chronically Pacifist for decades. Spending money on military equipment instead of social welfare green projects and useless bureaucrats is going to be a tough pill to swallow

@sabin97 Жыл бұрын

yeah. it's almost as if a better educated,higher income, healthier, happier population is more important to them than being militaristic.

@mattharcla Жыл бұрын

Can you blame them?

@williamsherman1942 Жыл бұрын

@@mattharclaPacifism is weakness, if you want to prevent war you must be able to confront ir

@N7-WAR-HOUND Жыл бұрын

@@sabin97 i agree with you to an extent however now the bear is at the door it’s time to wake up, if not for American blood and treasure Europe would not have such privileges, time to be responsible for the preservation of those traits you’ve listed

@N7-WAR-HOUND Жыл бұрын

@@williamsherman1942 I think there’s a healthy balance and America for the most part has a superior mix. With our gifted geography and position as the world’s currency we’ve never needed anything special beyond the barest competence

@Rascallucci Жыл бұрын

I absolutely agree. Ukraine doesn't just need modern tanks, they need modern tanks in quantity that can break that very threshold to make a notable difference on the battlefield. US is the only country that has that kind of capacity. Right now we are talking about 300+ tanks (combined), but if you want Ukraine to win this war, it could easily be double that amount if not 1,000+ tanks when is said and done. This is not the time to hold back especially after Putin's speech which now leaves no room for any negotiation in the foreseeable future.

@pxcs7559 Жыл бұрын

You do realise there are 2500 leo 2s in Europe?

@russianprincess3673 Жыл бұрын

So you support a Neo Nazi corrupt Fascist State?

@MacTac141 Жыл бұрын

All I can say is I can’t wait to see Leopard 2s and Bradley IFVs rolling through Crimea together. 2023 is definitely gonna be a year for the history books!

@nicolasbascunan4013 Жыл бұрын

Hope that doesn't happen. Because if that happens those tanks most likely will end up nuked before Russia let them get to Crimea.

@jojotv9383 Жыл бұрын

Oh yeah. Lets hope they can reclaim the whole country. Both of those machines look so great!

@memunist5765 Жыл бұрын

@@nicolasbascunan4013 russia would not dare. They fear any reponse to their nuclear escalation. They would also lose their last major ally, China. Not even a fool would be dumb enough. However, before the war we also thought that the russians would not be foolish enough to take out power infrastructure. So the lead monkey might do it (and fail because bradleys and especially leos were specificly designed to keep going on the nuclear battlefield).

@alexnderrrthewoke4479 Жыл бұрын

@@jojotv9383 lmao you guys seriously believe that? Russia opened a new museum ready to have all those to parade soon or next year March 9 patriotic war. Continue cope. 🤣🤣🤣

@jojotv9383 Жыл бұрын

@@alexnderrrthewoke4479 Believing? Since when its important what were believing or not? I hoped, not believed, if you read it right. But that does not matter since we arent the ones influencing the battlefield. The important thing is not what we believe, but what actually happens, and well, and what will actually happen is anyones guess.

@WearyWizard Жыл бұрын

It's probably important to remember that this video is about which tank is best for the current conflict not which is the best tank

@ongman1 Жыл бұрын

Although not officially in NATO, Ukraine is more armed in NATO standards than many NATO countries.

@Dirty_Dumb_NAFO_Scum Жыл бұрын

Only because they've lost more equipment than Ukraine had to begin with. Both planes and tanks, their losses are far above 100% meaning all the shit they've been donated is also gone as well.

@blackdeath2822 Жыл бұрын

@@Dirty_Dumb_NAFO_Scum If that's the case Russia should win this war by tomorrow

@Dirty_Dumb_NAFO_Scum Жыл бұрын

@@blackdeath2822 For all intents and purposes it is already won, Cocainesky is merely throwing away the lives of Ukrainians in Bakhmut and other areas. The United States as relented in their offering of the Abrams and is now fulfilling an entirely separate order of them to be made in the United States and now they're saying it could take multiple years for them to fully arrive. That's useless, soon there will be more poles fighting in Ukraine than actual Ukrainians, there were some 20k poles and somewhere in the neighborhood of a few thousand have already died. All Ukraine has now is terroristic attacks against civil infrastructure, they lobbed missiles at a hospital the other day.

@blackdeath2822 Жыл бұрын

@@Dirty_Dumb_NAFO_Scum Where do y'all get this shit? I mean seriously...

@blackdeath2822 Жыл бұрын

@@Dirty_Dumb_NAFO_Scum Russia hasn't even accomplished its stated goals and has even admitted it will take years to capture all annexed territories. Not all of Ukraine, just the annexed regions, years... and poles? My guy Poles are NATO if they were in Ukraine right now it would be ww3 and they wouldn't be alone either.

@ruojautuma1 Жыл бұрын

The 100 ish Leopard 2A4 Finland has are actually not completely stored away in long term storage. They very much have an active war-time role and reservists are still getting refresher training on them. This would remain the case for years to come even if they completely stopped training new crews on them (not sure if they did). Most of them are likely actively maintained, though it should be mentioned the exact number still active is not known.

@tarab9081 Жыл бұрын

Is it because the Abrams is the best tank in the world and is specifically designed to curb-stomp Soviet hardware?

@BaalAdvocate Жыл бұрын

A 'analysis' channel that claims logistics aren't a concern..? The Abrams is a maintenance sink; how many support personal will the uks need to allocate to training for a small number of tanks? Uniform equipment is useful for a reason, simpler logistics.

@kettle4316 Жыл бұрын

Leopard is the best tank in world mate

@voltage80x Жыл бұрын

@@kettle4316 until it meets the A1

@GigaChadlovesandcares Жыл бұрын

@@kettle4316 Until it meets a enemy with a technology and armor edge

@kevinfidler6287 Жыл бұрын

@@kettle4316 that has yet to be proven in battle. I suppose we may find out over the next 12 mos or so.

@jebise1126 Жыл бұрын

wait what? abrams holds 2 cubic meters of fuel? shit... thats some serious amount...

@ChineseFentanyl Жыл бұрын

Cool video blinkov. Your subject of videos are obviously polarizing but I’ve been a subscriber for a long time and I appreciate the consistency despite the comments.

@andrewstrongman305 Жыл бұрын

I've been arguing this for months. The Abrams is the only tank available in large enough numbers.

@duckdogers4438 Жыл бұрын

Excellent reasoning and analysis, thank you.

@louisquatorze9280 Жыл бұрын

I would not mind having an Abrams on my daily commute. It would solve a lot of problems.

@SpencerHHO Жыл бұрын

Not your fuel bill though lol

@N7-WAR-HOUND Жыл бұрын

@@SpencerHHO bill? Just roll up to the airport and kindly ask for some jet fuel, everyone in nice to the guy with a cannon

@kalmed7248 Жыл бұрын

I think you need a "anti-pop filtre" the sound would be very more agreable. Thank you for the video.

@PeterMuskrat6968 Жыл бұрын

Multiple sources are saying that the US will speed up the delivery timetable. So do with that information as you wish… Anyway I’ve been saying it since last April… the Abrams is the best fit for Ukraine in the medium and long term, as we have the numbers to send a significant amount. The Leo is good and all… but due to European negligence they don’t have any to actually spare without crippling their own tank forces. The problems the Abrams faces are far outweighed by the number factor alone.

@masterchief2402 Жыл бұрын

Not only that, but the Abrams was designed for Europe. Also due to the superior blow out ammo racks, the Abrams can protect elite tank crews from fatality, allowing them to rampage shortly after

@brettswanson Жыл бұрын

USA builds tanks simply to store them... We park them in the western desserts. Until the Russian invasion of Ukrain, I thought of this as a waste of tax-dollars. Now I understand why it is important to have thousands of extras. It takes time to build more, and sometimes, you don't have time.

@Nesstor01 Жыл бұрын

I suppose the 800 plus bases the US has just defend themselves without those tanks correct? You're naive to think US has thousands and thousands of tanks sitting inside continental US collecting dust in the desert. The 15 bases in Korea alone has a few brigades worth of tanks sitting on those bases.

@RobinTheBot Жыл бұрын

Exactly. Lessons learned from the world wars, and bravely fought for by the few generals who understood.

@RobinTheBot Жыл бұрын

@@Nesstor01 ... But we do. We have tanks at those bases, and also thousands in the deserts, and more being made every day. They've been making these non stop since the 70's, even when we didn't need them. You can literally see them on Google maps. So confused how you doubt your own eyes. I guess you just can't believe the size of the US military?

@nobodyherepal3292 Жыл бұрын

@@Nesstor01you want to see the Sierra Army depot? You can find it online with its *fields* of tanks just waiting to get activated.

@d3faulted2 Жыл бұрын

@@Nesstor01 Those would be counted amongst the thousands that we have in active use, we still have thousands more in deep storage.

@TheDude50447 Жыл бұрын

Interesting how in some way the gas turbines biggest weakness is to some degree its biggest strength. It uses a shitton of fuel while idling but because of it is quick to accelerate. Anyway what I often see overlooked in the fuel issue is that encircling of troops is a regular occurence in any war. That can cut the fuel supply meaning in those cases an Abrams is more likely to get stuck.

@sumotony Жыл бұрын

Lars, you are correct, but the Russians have shown little initiative to actually get out of their "lagars" and walk into the woods in Ukranian territory. You would find that NATO trained Ukranian special forces would be expert by now at going after Russian supply lines. Russian Spetnaz seemed to have only failed at going after Kyiv, and then Russian elite BTGs have all been used as heavy armor units

@tazmokhan7614 Жыл бұрын

Great vid as usual, I wonder if you have seen what the CPP said about sending military weapons and if so, when is a video coming on that subject. Thxz again for your vids.

@christophe5756 Жыл бұрын

Thank You Commissar. This was another Excellent video! 👍🏽👍🏽

@glennmitchell9107 Жыл бұрын

Any tank offensive in Ukraine won't be charging to the Rhine across Northern France. The Red Ball Express that resupplied Patton's Third Army will not be needed to resupply the Kharkiv Territorial Guard. Any of these modern tanks will run out of Russian targets before they run out of fuel. The Russian border is within range of each tank's internal fuel supply.

@colincampbell767 Жыл бұрын

The limit of any advance is the time it takes a truck to move from the supply depot to the destination unit, offload, and then return to the depot while it is still daylight. And 'convoy' speeds and generally half the 'speed limit' for that section of road. (Because driving under blackout conditions involves speeds of less than 15 MPH.) If the supply trucks arrive near dusk - the stuff they are carrying will not make it to the line units that night. (Once you get near the front lines your supply operations have to be done at night.)

@that207guy7 Жыл бұрын

The engine in the abrams can actually run on pretty much anything flammable, just not very efficiently. But it does have engine management that helps with fuel mapping for whatever fuel your running so itll never overheat.

@ghillieguy52 Жыл бұрын

Obviously, the best tank is the bob semple. We already know they can weaponize tractors

@brentlabeau Жыл бұрын

Challenger, Abrams, and Leopard are the same basic tank. One big difference, is has a turbine engine the Abrams has, a jet engine, that can reach speeds of 70 mph. The best inventions, the Chobham armor from Britain, and the rocket gun from Germany.

@Gutenburg100 Жыл бұрын

Challenger can also engage targets further and is more accurate due to its rifled barrel and is regarded as the most well armored tank. Leopard is do believe has the better gun stabilization platform and is the fastest tank on soft to intermediate ground. Abrams is just a good all arounder. It also has seen combat more than any other tank outside of Russian production. Also it's optics and technology inside its bt far the best.

@colincampbell767 Жыл бұрын

The M1 series tank is software limited to 50-55 MPH. And even going that fast is not very fun because of how sensitive the steering becomes. The advantage of the turbine is not the top speed. It's level of agility and stealth it gives the tank. An M1 series tank can shoot, back up, turn, and them move out at speed before the return fire arrives. And the turbine is quiet. There's good reason the M1 series tank got the nickname 'whispering death.'

@wuodanstrasse5631 Жыл бұрын

@Colin Campbell You are ever so correct, Sir. And this from a USMC Colonel.

@klardfarkus3891 Жыл бұрын

Funny how people steadfastly insist on the concept of the battlefield consisting of tank on tank battles when reality is very diferent.

@Tyr1001 Жыл бұрын

blinkov said the opposite of this in the video, that whatever tanks they have will rarely be used against other tanks

@lucasrodillo6739 Жыл бұрын

Woa, lot's of Putinbots in this space, getting wrecked like the Russian Armed Forces

@armandomercado2248 Жыл бұрын

It is both surprising and concerning that so few tanks are ready for deployment.

@corey8420 Жыл бұрын

Trump called NATO out for spending so little on their militaries and everyone thought he was out of line and mean.

@armandomercado2248 Жыл бұрын

@@corey8420 Trump did the right thing, but for the wrong reason. NATO countries were under investing in their own defense, relying on the US to pick up the slack. Trump only saw the money part of the problem. The under investing is obvious now. There's been a shooting war going on in Europe for a year and no one has tanks ready for use.

@billburrcorner2727 Жыл бұрын

@@corey8420 the US wants to lead NATO in wartime, so its only fair they pay the brunt of the cost

@sabin97 Жыл бұрын

@@corey8420 actually drumpf thought nato was some sort of big commie pot where everyone was to put some money. that's what he "called out". he wanted other countries to pay him LOL.... i miss that ridiculous orange clown......remember when he got laughed out of the un?

@armandomercado2248 Жыл бұрын

@@billburrcorner2727 NATO defers to US leadership. Germany for example could have decided to send tanks on its own, but called on the US to send tanks first.

@shawnespinoza9300 Жыл бұрын

Excellent episode! I appreciate the analysis!

@martalukaszjastrzab760 Жыл бұрын

Poland has bought 360+ Abrams with training and maintenance packages. We repair Ukrainians T-72, howitzers BWP-1 and so on. We can do Abrams too.

@LexieLPoyser Жыл бұрын

I have a sneaking suspicion that Poland could kick Russia’s ass at this point.

@nicklibby3784 Жыл бұрын

Did they get the warranty package too along with the training and maintenance packages? Or does it already come with a guaranteed warranty? Does the warranty have a expiration date too? And how are they paying for this? Full amount all at once? Or are they making monthly payments? - is there interest? Or is it like a subscription package?

@martalukaszjastrzab760 Жыл бұрын

@@LexieLPoyser US is treating this seriously, hence Polish army is the first outside US to use the latest anti-tank ammunition. The delivery of Sep3 tanks has been sped up as well.

@jamesglass4842 Жыл бұрын

@@LexieLPoyser The Russian 3rd Tank Army is sitting waiting in Belorussian territory waiting with Belorussian forces just incase there is a strike from Poland into Western Ukraine

@ronniefarnsworth6465 Жыл бұрын

Facts, It comes down to training and crew experience and intel !!! The US ground forces have fought modern wars since 1991' so who do you think !! Sgt, Semper Fi

@martyndyson9501 Жыл бұрын

For me it comes down to one thing and that's numbers that can be given, 100 Challengers would be just as good as 100 Leo's or Abrams but here in the UK we ain't got 100 tanks to just give away, I doubt Germany has 100 Leo's to just give away, so that's why the Abrams is the best choice, 100 abrams could be shipped and trained on within 6 months, especially as the US has the biggest logistics and transportation means in the world.

@johnvitalis2656 Жыл бұрын

They do not need to be shipped! They are already prepositioned in Poland. Just repaint those unit names in them!

@paulbenwell3560 Жыл бұрын

Correct it is about numbers and so leopard is the tank that will make the difference. Europe already has hundreds and these are already starting to ship. The UK doesn't have challenger numbers itself, never mind to give away. And those Abrams are new ones off the line so will be months before built and shipped (I strongly suspect the reason for them was to push Germany to release the Leopards). Poland will ship loads of their leopards asap, and Germany is releasing delivery by a private arms-maker of its old Leopard 1 tanks (88 I think).

@Deacon_Blues_1984 Жыл бұрын

Awesome breakdown!

@drakkendragunov4761 Жыл бұрын

Inteligent report.

@kennethferland5579 Жыл бұрын

Excellent point, Binkov.

@thomasbernecky2078 Жыл бұрын

Sorry, but as Perun mentioned in his recent excellent AFV/IFV video, if Egypt can maintain their Abrams tanks, pretty sure Ukraine can? So that has never been a valid excuse? Time to send Ukraine another 700 M2 Bradleys (we have 2800 in storage and another 700 brand new M2A4 Bradley's ordered) and another 100 Abrams. Immediately. What else are we saving these 30 to 40 year old armor for?

@HereComeMrCee-Jay Жыл бұрын

Yes, there are valid challenges supporting the Abrams but they tend to be overblown. The biggest challenge, is expecting Ukraine to supply a wide variety of MBTs... can be done, but a not the easy button for sure

@fabik805 Жыл бұрын

@@HereComeMrCee-Jay Yeah the bigger problem is the fact that Ukraine now has the most diverse tank fleet in the world. If Ukraine only Used M1 Abrams i don't think logistics and maintenance wouldn't be a big issue.

@silverletter4551 Жыл бұрын

We don't need an excuse to mind our own business

@vepraksoldat2963 Жыл бұрын

One they just get destroyed, two Kiev forces are not trained to use them.

@vepraksoldat2963 Жыл бұрын

@@fabik805 they fleet is almost gone lol

@mcp121 Жыл бұрын

Regarding the sound of the engine, the turbine is not only quieter but the higher pitched whine sound doesn't travel as far as a low pitch grumbling of a diesel.

@Notrog21 Жыл бұрын

okay, yes but also... no.

@Nothing.... Жыл бұрын

Turbine engine is quieter in distance but louder when close While diesel engine is the opposite

@oldpaint7533 Жыл бұрын

@@Nothing.... lower frequencies are also harder to pinpoint.

@johnmoser1162 Жыл бұрын

Thanks Binkov - can't be explained better then you did !

@C4l4b82 Жыл бұрын

Greetings from Germany. I think too, that the Abrams version is superior as the 2A4. Only the 2A6 would help.

@midgetydeath Жыл бұрын

China and Russia: "Our tanks can beat any American tank in a fight!" US: "A-10 go BRRRRRRT"

@dumaflotchy13 Жыл бұрын

The Russians have quality shoulder mounted anti aircraft missle defense syst. A-10s would have been blasted to pieces. Several American military Generals already warned against using the A-10s. Ukraine ain't Afghanistan or Iraq.

@bush_wookie_9606 Жыл бұрын

Only 1 thing worse than Stalinium Soviet era armour for your tank and that's it being copied by the Chinese and being made out of Chinesium.

@foilhat1138 Жыл бұрын

dont make fun of glorious chinese knockoffs this is final warning from china

@theprogressivecynic2407 Жыл бұрын

Honestly, I would have LOVED to have been in the room when the Chinese Party leaders brought in their commanders to "discuss" their choice of building their military on bootleg Russian designs. They thought that they were copying the 2nd most powerful military on earth, but the Ukraine invasion has violently disabused the world of that assumption, and the efficacy of their weapons systems.

@kevinstorm2167 Жыл бұрын

Fuel, engines, and basic logistics to keep them on the field will be one issue. Fighting as combined arms is different than fighting lone wolf. That will mean aircraft to support the offensive operations, so this is going to be a hinderance as long as they have to fight without aircover.

@highjumpstudios2384 Жыл бұрын

If it helps any, it's not like the Russians are able to provide their own troops air cover either.

@foilhat1138 Жыл бұрын

presumably western aircraft are next on the list of stuff we're sending

@blantantlyaccidental Жыл бұрын

It's strange to hear a quote from "an expert" saying that that the Abrams "isn't suited for Ukraines terrain" when IT WAS MADE TO FIGHT IN THE EUROPEAN THEATRE. Like. Our WHOLE defense in depth plan included the fact that the Abrams and Challenger tanks(and the Conquerors at the time) had a very high first hit survival right and thus logistics and strategies were developed to use said Tanks effectively. Defend a position, hull down, hold until you can't, fall back to secondary positions, etc. Survive. Defense in depth. Considering the Ukrainians will probably be using the tanks being sent to them piece meal as rapid reactionary battalions in their defense this spring. Letting the Russians wash themselves against Ukrainian defenses, the Ukrainians would be smart to let the Russians run out of steam in a push, then pushing with their abrams, leos and challengers with thunder runs.

@Dirty_Dumb_NAFO_Scum Жыл бұрын

This was back in cold war times before munitions technologies basically made armor plating irrelevant. For a time they thought that tanks would be "too heavily armored" however now most current gen ATGMs can disable an abrams. Abrams has no hit survival margin now, kornets can blow right through their armor in most cases and that's what abrams are going to see the most of outside of artillery.

@infinitygirlak Жыл бұрын

I think the decisive issue will be if Ukraine can establish and maintain United States level of logistics. If there is one thing the US Armed Forces are good it, it’s moving stuff around.

@radosaworman7628 Жыл бұрын

I think that major overhaull of logistics will happen afer the war ends- and definitely to US style logistics. I fear moust transition period of tank crews - old habits die hard and polish tankers (some of instructors started on T-72's hopped to pt-91's then where changed to Leo 2's and now they will become instructor core for abrams) claim that hardest thing is getting used to wester style of operating as well as radically diffrent manual aspect of western tanks. Current logistics was optimalised for sake of one type of tank ammo and soon they will have at least 4 if not 5 (depending weather you count frenchie canon on their whelled IFV as a tank canon). I expect major troubles when it comes to this but i guess they will be still in better situation than vatniks as ukrainian car traders started to clean whole europe of second hand trucks, flatbeds and 4x4's fpr sake of war effort- as every easily reperaible truck and 4x4 in the back line duty fees up actual militray grade truck- a luxury that russians will not have as their car market is way smaller. If i'm not mistaken even their basic military 4x4 (dozor) was at one point entierly produced in poland so they can easily get them if ever europe will run out of humvees.

@sammiches6859 Жыл бұрын

The turbine engine can refuel at any liqueur or hardware store.

@colincampbell767 Жыл бұрын

A better idea would be to not refurbish to 'like new' condition. Replace any failed and 'iffy' components while at the same time gutting tanks that aren't worth refurbishing, refurbishing the parts to 'like new' condition and sending them forwards as repair parts. One of the things that make the M1 easy to keep running is that everything's modular. You don't have to troubleshoot the fault and repair it - all you need to do is identify the module and swap it out with a new one. The module is then sent back to a depot - or the factory - to be refurbished to like new condition. The idea here is getting a fairly reliable tank into the hands of Ukrainian tank crews in quantity and fast. Once the Ukrainians have enough tanks to really make a difference - then start toing the 'to like new' condition refurbs. Remember that they will be losing tanks so we will also have to be providing enough tanks to replace losses (a rule of thumb is a division will lose an average 30 tanks a month). Now most of these tanks will be repairable - but until the repair depots are putting out repaired tanks as fast as broken ones are coming in and there's a pipeline of tanks coming in to replace destroyed tanks - we will need to be providing replacement tanks at a quantity of at least 30 a month. BYW - a good labor force to get the initial repairs to get fairly reliable tanks out in quantity, is reserve component mechanics. Call up 400 of them, break then down into teams of 4 and given the mission of getting one FMC (Fully Mission Capable) tank out the door a week. This is doable - if only we had a president who provides solutions instead of excuses.

@pillscottvt6628 Жыл бұрын

P.S it takes 60 minutes to replace the complete power PACK on a M1. 63H

@HereComeMrCee-Jay Жыл бұрын

Yes, as long as you have an appropriate crane you can swap very quickly. Then you send the old pack behind the lines for refurbishment.

@BertoxolusThePuzzled Жыл бұрын

@@HereComeMrCee-Jay An awful lot of assumptions there for the front line or a conflict. The REAL problem I fear will be the sheer weight of these tanks bogging them down in rough terrain that these tanks weren't designed for (they were basically specially designed for operating in western Europe during any kind of invasion, where roads are large and sturdy and logistical access is plentiful and well developed, not the undeveloped mudfields and abundant river-fed wetlands of Eastern Ukraine offensively), and there is also the sizable problem that Russia is deploying T90's to the region which aren't objectively as good as an Abrams in capabilities but ARE designed specifically to counter the Abrams and it's various publically known capabilities (IE their fancy new armor piercing rounds that allegedly can one-shot the ablative Abrams armor, which I am sceptical about but it IS an awfully heavy round). If we see Abrams start going down in any sort of large numbers regardless of the reason that doesn't just make Ukraine look bad but the U.S. by proxy. I suspect we may just end up hanging Ukraine out to dry by sending only a few or endlessly delaying their delivery over and over until the war is effectively over, just to avoid getting dragged further in or escalating into scary WW3 territory.

@TrassseB Жыл бұрын

Auxiliary power units are a must on Abrams with it installed it’s pretty much the best or 2nd best tank on earth

@UnitedUA Жыл бұрын

] Biden goes to Ukraine while Putin is afraid to fly! 😘 Glory to the Heroes! #PutinWarCriminal

@Feffdc Жыл бұрын

Funny thing is the Americans informed the Russians of the visit to stop a potential bombing of Kiev while Biden is there

@missk1697 Жыл бұрын

>talks about war crimes >US flag pfp Talk about hypocrisy

@UnitedUA Жыл бұрын

@Feffdc Yes, because the US knew Putin would be too afraid to attack him while he's there.

@StabbinJoeScarborough Жыл бұрын

Zelinsky gave joe a small child as a gift !

@Feffdc Жыл бұрын

@@UnitedUA World leaders never attack at each other. It was always an unwritten law. You know except US doing that to 3rd world countries

@Apexseals87 Жыл бұрын

like everyone else, you assume they'll use jet fuel in the abrams, when they can run on diesel like all the rest.

@happyhappynuts Жыл бұрын

Isnt it the case it can run on a variety of fuels?

@Apexseals87 Жыл бұрын

@@happyhappynuts it can yeah, basically any liquid fuel that can burn, it'll run on it.

@Full_Otto_Bismarck Жыл бұрын

@Apexseals Even though that is true the rate of fuel consumption is another problem. The Abrams is a damn good MBT, for the United States, who have arguably the best logistics of any military in the world. Supplies can be airlifted, including fuel in huge bladders, to anywhere in the world within a matter of hours if the need calls for it. Ukraine just doesn't have that kind of infrastructure and resources. Being multi fuel will definitely help though and its a real positive attribute of the Abrams that is often overlooked. Other US military equipment has this capability as well such as the 2.5 and 5 ton trucks "deuce and a halfs" which have the older diesels (Detroit 2 strokes i believe). We shall see if this capability pays off when abrams arrive in Ukraine.

@colincampbell767 Жыл бұрын

@@Full_Otto_Bismarck The fuel issues with the M1s were solved by adding APUs. And when you look at the overall fuel requirements for an Armored brigade - the M1s add about 2% to overall amount of fuel needed.

@Sketch1ish Жыл бұрын

The USA's greatest strength is it's logistics. With out a global level logistics system, we could never reliably field weapons systems like the Abrams.

@BlackEpyon Жыл бұрын

Advantages to diesel engines: Any farm kid with experience fixing tractors could figure out a normal tank's diesel engine. The Abrams, you need to find a jet-engine mechanic. Advantages to jet-turbine engine: Higher torque under load, and it can drink anything from vodka to the used cooking oil in Babuska's kitchen.

@Jkim890 Жыл бұрын

People overestimate how complicated the jet turbine is. It’s designed to be a workhorse on the ground, not a bleeding edge space-tech machine like you see in too generation fighter aircraft.

@Mgl1206 Жыл бұрын

That’s why the US military made it so you can take out the entire engine for maintenance and you can just put in a working engine into the tank while you fix the engine.

@farmerned6 Жыл бұрын

Disadvantages to jet-turbine engine it drinks more at Idle A Leo can drive out, sit on a hill/in cover with the engine on tickover for TWO DAYS and then drive back to refuel, M1 cant

@Jkim890 Жыл бұрын

@@farmerned6 Binkov covered the reasons why the mileage problems of the Abrams aren't that big of an issue in Ukraine

@midgetydeath Жыл бұрын

Depends on what you need it for, like any tool.

@davidodonovan1699 Жыл бұрын

9:07 into this video: This is a very interesting video so far. I'm loving this grafh comparison of the Netherlands and French Armies examples. Just looking at their tank to Self Propelled Guns ratios being so different, is very interesting. I'm guessing that because of Frances greater history overseas, such as in Africa during the cold war till today, they have learnt how hard it must be on logistics, to have 11,000 of those trucks. Like trying to move fuel across the Sahara desert and central Africa, and even the fuel to fuel the logistics trucks themselves. Having said that, it's 222 tanks and 90 SPG's compared to 18 tanks and 50 SPG's, so those two figures alone sound like a very large difference in logistics requirements. Not to say that the Netherlands hasn't taken part in military operations either though. I think they fought in the war on terror and presumably many UN peacekeeping missions.

@BenSmith-qw4kd Жыл бұрын

There sure are a lot of Russian stooges in this comment section. I guess copium is the one thing their broken logistics have no problems supplying.

@ForOne814 Жыл бұрын

Ukrainian logistics are really good though. They deliver meat from all across the country straight into Bakhmut in less than a week. And that includes training. Well, lack of it, but still, on paper it includes it.

@Greg_Andrews Жыл бұрын

LOL!!! Someone actually raised his hand..."ME!!! I'm one of those STOOGES!!!" 😆😆😅😅🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@klardfarkus3891 Жыл бұрын

Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe. It should be destroyed.

@KirosanaPerkele Жыл бұрын

@@klardfarkus3891 Russia is more corrupt. Shall we destroy it then? Hm?

@klardfarkus3891 Жыл бұрын

@@KirosanaPerkele propaganda just like all the foreign wealth they were going to seize from Putin. If he had any we would have heard about it. Just lies.

@darksnakenerdmaster Жыл бұрын

To be fair, you could send M60 pattons covered in ERA to Ukraine and they'd be more effective than most of the stuff that the Russians are fielding. Half ot the tanks on the frontlines were the vehichles that the M60 was designed to crack open like a tin of beans.

@fatdaddy1996 Жыл бұрын

In what way is an M60 better than a T72?

@notastone4832 Жыл бұрын

@@fatdaddy1996 T-72B3 with french thermals.... not to mention the brand new T-90's still getting sent regularly

@darksnakenerdmaster Жыл бұрын

@@fatdaddy1996 Build quality

@forrestsory1893 Жыл бұрын

Problem is the OTHER half was designed to Crack open a M60. Not an Abrams. The Ukraine cannot sustain personel losses as well as Russia. Trained crews are a valuable asset. ERA will not even up a M60 enough in my opinion.

@dennisbrown5313 Жыл бұрын

All excellent points that I certainly didn't know

@elbanoleon1037 Жыл бұрын

Nice

@xiphoid2011 Жыл бұрын

Glad to see that the Abram will finally do what it is meant to do - fighting the Russian army.

@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022 Жыл бұрын

I feel like the biggest issue is quantity. Only 30? Feels like 300 M60s would have been better choice, they're extremely close to being scrapped anyways, might as well make use of them. Yes, more Abrams are probably coming in, but it's better to come banging in rather than allowing the Russians to get geadually used to it.

@enalb5085 Жыл бұрын

better choice is not sticking our nose in shit that isn't our business

@macobuzi Жыл бұрын

US supplied Ukraine with Abrams only to make Germany agree to supply Ukraine with Leopards. So Leopards supposed to be the main characters here.

@davidporter7051 Жыл бұрын

@@enalb5085 you can move to Costa Rica. The climate there suits you.

@rbrtck Жыл бұрын

@@enalb5085 By the time it becomes our business, things will have gotten a lot worse, like what happened in World War II, for example.

@forrestsory1893 Жыл бұрын

Does the US still have M60s? Even on the National Guard level? I remember watching news clips of those things being dumped in the Ocean to create artificial fishing reefs.

@iii-ei5cv Жыл бұрын

Great video as always!

@jasonprivately1764 Жыл бұрын

Even tho the Abrams tank altercations s heavier, it's footprint of weight spread across the treads is actually lighter than most main battle tanks

@arbelico2 Жыл бұрын

The most abundant military material is ex-Soviet, followed by the US, and that is what has to be sent to Ukraine, with some exceptions. Ukraine needs cruise missiles and western aviation to be able to attack in depth: missile launching platforms, logistics, communications, etc ....

@highjumpstudios2384 Жыл бұрын

Why should old poorly maintained Soviet trash be sent first? The T-64 was the last good tank that regime made, and all its production facilities were put in Ukraine.

@arbelico2 Жыл бұрын

@@highjumpstudios2384 This is sent by Russia to the Dombas militias.

@highjumpstudios2384 Жыл бұрын

@@arbelico2 huh?

@sanic7402 Жыл бұрын

I love coming to the comments on these videos to read the pro russian fan fictions. Very interesting stories the bots come up with.

@egloblam Жыл бұрын

AFAIK the Abrams can technically fire Leo's ammo and vice versa, but there is apparently not so insignificant problem. Abrams has shorter barrel, but fires higher pressure ammo that accomodates for that. It also has a stronger breech to be able to handle that. Firing Leo's ammo would cause an incomplete burn of the propellant because of the shorter barrel and would probably hinder accuracy quite significantly. Leo on the other hand has longer barrel. Its ammo has longer burning propellant to take the advantage of that. It can sustain lower pressure, though, so firing Abrams ammo would cause significantly higher wear of the barrel and most probably a failure after a few rounds. So yeah, both round are the same caliber, but are not really interchangable in practice.

@cattledog901 Жыл бұрын

You are correct on everything except for the shorter barrel on the Abrams having accuracy issues with german spec ammo and that's simply not the case. The Abrams can eat german ammo all day long with great accuracy, only issue is a slightly higher muzzle flash. Leo however cannot use newer high pressure APFSDS the U.S. uses because the breech isn't rated to handle it.

@egloblam Жыл бұрын

@@cattledog901 I stand corrected. However, wouldn't a shorter barrel causing less propellant being burnt result in lower projectile energy and hence worse trajectory? Could Abrams adjust its aiming to accomodate for lower energy projectile?

@simian_essence Жыл бұрын

Excellently argued. Blows other arguments for Leopards and others out of the water.

@skildude Жыл бұрын

I recall that the biggest tell for tanks is not the engine noise. I could hear them coming just from the tracks clankity clanking. I could also tell one was coming at over a mile away just from the exhaust. In the field a fountain of exhaust is easy to see. Very little else in the countryside would make that plume

@colincampbell767 Жыл бұрын

And that tank was not an M1 series. The turbine is extremely quiet, and the 'silent tracks' make the tank very hard to hear even if it's under 100 meters away. The nickname of the M1 series tank is 'whispering death.'