I have never had more fun driving anything than when I was the driver on an Abrams crew.

I saw that the Army was abandoning the M1A2 SepV4 variant and going to a straight new one with things like a remote turret, new gun that can withstand higher pressure shells and is lighter and a new lighter turret and chassis. Possibly even a longer chassis and even a movement to torsion bar suspension to the same one used in the Leopard 2s. I wonder how well it would be then and I heard that a few years ago that the army had a secret competition on a new tank, and they revealed some of the tank models that they did not choose and had the chosen one hidden, I wonder what happened to that program or if it got cancel to create would most likely become the Abrams M1A3 variant. I also remember hearing about an Abrams prototype with a remote turret that was done about a decade or two ago. I also heard about the planned movement to gen three thermals and everything which is cool.

Many countries dubbed the Abrams as the silent deadly warrior, people always think the M1 has a loud engine because of the turbine, but when they're on the move they're quieter than the Diesel turbo counterparts like Leopard, Challenger, Leclerc etc. But for the crew inside the Abrams when stationary it's quite loud, had a buddy who was an Abrams tank loader for 3 years in the Army and the whole thing he heard other than the guns inside the tank or the other crew voices was the sound of the turbine.

Good to hear.

Baumholder?

My unit marched into Iraq with M1A1s in 2003. A few days later we were airlifted by C17s and attached to Delta.

We still used the exhaust instead of the MRE heaters, or a canteen cup in front of the heater exhaust.

I remember one time in Korea when we were in the field. It was winter and cold as a mfer. Early one frosty morning in the motor pool we fired up our m1a1 AIMS tanks. Every scout, mechanic, and infantryman in the motor pool looked like hounds running to the dinner bell trying to find a spot behind an m1 to warm themselves. It's terrific vehicle.

@@T_81535 Brother, the exact same thing happened when I was over there in Hoenfels and Graf. Thanks for bringing back that memory! I enjoyed when we'd leave Erlangen to load up on the trains and the kids would line the streets and we'd throw MREs and candy to them. They loved it. The adults, not so much. Especially one time a driver in our battalion tore up a curb and some of the grass too. I rode past it and saw it. I don't know what the Hell happened but I'm sure a whole lot paperwork had to be filled out. I bet his ass was in the dog house a looooong time. 😂 Thanks for your service and sacrifice, Brother. ✌

Correction: Brit- "We go'uh ke'tle bruv"

And a Bo o o wo oh

@@DOI_ARTS and a bottle of water? : )

American mains still be crying for s*cking so hard.😂😂 Instead of complaining why dont they just get better at the game.

On the SEPv3 I hope not, there are better systems out there. At least better than a hard metal plate. But in WT nobody will shoot it anyway, ur turret ring is the one hit kill XD

​@@philosophia_melancholia6614 You know nothing about Abrams armor.

@@royagservicesllc387 Yes And? the first part is about amor in general and the second about a game, so what is ur Point?

@@philosophia_melancholia6614 My point stands.

All Brits do. 🤭

It’s 66 tons. The Sep V3, Chally 3, Leopard 2A7 and Merkava tanks all weigh about the same amount at around 66 tons to 68 tons

​@@ruska9773A basic SEPv3 weighs 66.7 metric tons, not 73.6... you don't even know what you're talking about. Challenger 2 has a 70mm RHA lower plate and you're saying It offers better protection than the 650mm Composite armor module of the Abrams hull? Abrams is smaller compared to Leo 2, Challenger and Merkava yet weighs almost the same as them... so It is smaller and heavier than a Merkava Mk. 4 but It offers less protection? It must be that 4 ton commander chair right? Or the 6 ton APU? Pathetic.

​​@@ruska9773ask yourself why the Abrams weights more tho. It's obviously because of the armor protection. Also, you mention the one chally surviving 70 RPGs. Abrams is on record for surviving rpg's, IED's, atgm's, recoilless rifles and main gun tank rounds at close range. One video shows an Abrams take a direct hit from an atgm and not only survive the hit but return fire, killing the missile team. You can see all this for yourself through Google and utube. I get tickled at the Brits touting there chally tanks as if there the best on the planet😆. Two piece ammo? C'mon man. And the vehicle itself is sluggish as hell. Abrams can travel at over 40 mph. Some can reach 50mph. Now your gonna come back with Dorchester armor and longest tank on tank kill shot. Dorchester is good but the Abrams is on record for being just as survivable as the chally by all accounts. Some say Abrams is even more survivable. This new version, I guarantee, is more survivable than any chally and one of our company gunners serviced a tandem axle military truck in Iraq at over 5,000 meters with a heat round. That same shot would have toasted an Iraqi t72 no problem. One of our gunners had ten serviced t72's under his belt in Iraq. All with heat rounds.

@@ruska9773 they do not offer significantly better protection than an American abrams with DU lmao

80 tones now if you add all the ERA

Big facts gunning is easy af

Your right about the TC being the most important role on the tank. Everything the tank does is at the order of the TC but on an Lt's tank, the gunner is pretty much the man because the Lt is never on the tank except for the field or in theater. That was always the case for me anyway. I was on an XO's tank and a platoon leaders tank and the only time I saw those dudes on board is when the tank was shooting. Hell they weren't even in board for road marches half the time and maintenance? Forget about it .

Did your tank by any chance have spall liners that you know of?

@@wadefinnigan9207 Lols your IP address is coming from mainland China 🤔

@@JC-fy8wh😂

To be fair, he did say “cold winter night.”

At idle you can stand directly behind the tank but at high RPM it will light you up. We caught the woods on fire several times with that exhaust when I was in.

It needs an anti-drone unit or something. In the Ukrainian war most of the tank losses were caused by FPV suicide drones.

@@pdzlatan It is not like they operate alone, decent odds the amount of increased activity of drones may have that capability on a separate vehicle.

Jokes on you.

It is the smoothest ride you'll ever have

Ukraine learned that lesson: the way to keep Western tanks alive is not to let them anywhere near the front line.

Well for people with IQ less than a Rooster there is only black and white, either a super weapon or trash form the last century. well at least i live after my ammo gets hit XD

​@@tellyboy17And russian tanks?

​@@tellyboy17better than russian tanks that burn up as soon as its hit one time.

@@oxide8696 I think Russia has accepted that tanks are single use are this point.

Lol the A1 and A2 still obliterate anything theyre going to be fighting anytime soon

@@mcgilliman Yup, a redesign would probably help but the necessary infrastructure for widespread implementation probably costs too much

@@mcgillimanthe amount of times that this has been said throughout history makes me wonder how people can still say that. Anything is possible, dont ever say its impossible

@@aymenal-hafidh frontally? maybe if it hits the UFP at a steep enough angle. Turret cheeks? Hell no

Nope, that's drones these days.

I don't think parts of congress wants to lose the jobs/money from closing the factories. Hopefully they can be easily retooled to produce whatever the next gen is, but not really sure what we are going to do with thousands of abrams of different levels of upgrades. I guess they can sit in a desert for 80 years like Russia's T-55s.

unmacthed for whom? most of that combat record come with enemies far less superior than them. It is like in a game you can increase your K/D by killing bots.These tanks and the US doctarine would go out of the window the moment they face ATGMs,FPV and various other drones

If you have the logistics it is. If you don't well...

now, now, it's great, but the best? in a world where the leopard and challenger exists, maybe 4th or 5th since there are also the corean K2 and the Leclerc

The merkva is better than an Abrams. Also your info on the new armor package is wrong. I went to master gunner school when the sep v2 was being fielded. I will say this with out a tusk or throphy system the v3 will kick ass in surburban setting. Also the tank commander will have eye in the sky and target plotting triple hunter kill. But thats all im sayng and yes its being tested now and its dam good.

I wouldnt say there the best tanks. Lets see, where has the US Army deployed Abrams: Persian Gulf War - Fighting against T-54s, T-62s, and T-72s. Several Abrams were hit by enemy fire, but none destroyed (one was disabled and abandoned). A total of 9 Abrams were destroyed, 7 of which were friendly fire and the other two were intentionally destroyed to prevent them falling into enemy hands. Another 14 were damaged in the fighting. Iraq War - Again facing T-72s, apparently with crews who hadn't fired live ammo before and who couldn't hit anything. However several Abrams were disabled by infantry, both by rocket attacks and small arms fire. 80 Abrams were forced out of action, with 63 restored to fighting condition and 17 damaged beyond repair. Afghanistan - Very limited use due to the mountainous terrain, don't believe any encountered enemy armor. So in the three wars that the US actively deployed Abrams to, they faced outdated equipment manned by poorly trained troops and thus didn't get destroyed by enemy tanks. However they did have multiple friendly fire losses and losses from infantry attacks. It doesn't appear that the US has sent them in against more modern tanks, and I don't think any other operators of the Abrams have either. TL:DR; It's easy to say you haven't lost a tank to enemy tank fire if the only enemy tanks you send it against are so outdated that they'd struggle to do anything. compare that to the record of challenger 2's and it speaks for itself

@@parapat9957 leopards ammo is not stored safe and the turret can only carry less than 20 rounds the rest go in the hull the challenger has 0 blowout panels any penetration is game over the abrams is the best

This does not have trophy or another APS equipped (trophy looks kinda like big ears on the sides of the turret). I suspect you view these as what an armored vehicle should have for the future/current conflicts and I agree. An APS will be crucial for survivability (mobility or hard kill) against a range of threats, including certain drones, missiles, and slower moving projectiles. The more difficult it is for infantry or a single weapon launch to threaten an armored vehicle, the longer that vehicle will stay in the fight or manage a retreat to fight again, and the more resources an opponent needs to commit/have/lug around to take one out. At a certain point it becomes a straight up logistical challenge to take out multiple armored vehicles with missiles/drones when needing two or more in quick succession on a single target just to get a hit, assuming no use of other defensive measures like smoke or anti-laser. This isn't even taking into account that with one equipped the crew will have directional information via radar as to where the attack came from, pointing a line to where an enemy AT position is and such information can be shared with other Abrams once sensor fusion is a thing (next generation? currently?). I am a big proponent of APS. I think the new redesigned Abrams will have an APS with ground-up integration, while simply slapping yet another system onto the current Abrams brings its weight into question. I will give the current model and designers props for somehow integrating decades of tech onto the platform and still maintaining something so effective.

They should never mention a single upgrade.

Yes. Amid layers of RHA and expanded polystyrene...

I bet the crew when operating in a warzone like that increased armor

⁠@@terskataneli6457better then being reduced to atoms like the Ruzzies

@@terskataneli6457 yeah armor is the best

@@lt_cycloperstrike199def agree, not military but ive seen ukranians survive in up-armored american vehicles. Armor is definitely good for saving lives

A very detailed and I think reasonable Quora reply I read points to training, lack of will, and lack of support/reconnaissance from friendly forces. One took a hit to the turret armor, non-penetrating, after sitting on a hill right next to a prepared opfor position (apparently oblivious) and the crew abandoned it and got shot at. Then the rebels, apparently not knowing what to do with a fully functional tank, eventually lit it on fire after I assume looting it. A Kornet into the sides/rear is going to suck in just about any vehicle, so if the tanks/forces cannot spot guys in the desert lugging 100 lbs of gear around barefoot to flank and taking minutes to set up, then there is no helping them. Abrams is a good tank, not magic *shrug*.

The Panther KF51 from Rheinmetall, originally designed with a 130 mm cannon, will also get a 120 mm cannon (for now at least, with the contract of the Hungarian government...)

No enemy currently on the battlefield has armor to warrant a 130mm gun upgrade. Until then, we'll continue to use the stock of 120mm ammo that does the job a little too well as it sits.

@@user-uo3ws7np8r Hi mate, thanks for the info, didn't Rheinmatall also offer the Brits the 130mm for their Challenger 3 program before they opted to go with the 120mm?

@@K_GHOST225Hi mate, I thought the idea was to go 130mm with having the Russian T14 Armta in mind?

@@aking-plums6985 I don't think anyone is taking the T14 serious at this point. Russia has a long history of over-promising and under-delivering when it comes to technologies like this. Given how quickly they moved them away from Ukraine after their live fire exercises, it is obvious they aren't ready to trust them in front line combat yet.

Tank combat isn't entirely about keeping your tank visibly concealed to the naked eye, tank fights will be fought from 800-2,000 meters away in modern combat

@@crusader_wolf1104 yes. But with thermals and stuff, every little bit helps when trying to remain hull down.

The hardware on the roof of the tank offers more benefits than it does cons though, in a hull down scenario it isn't the tanks goal to be hidden, it's to expose the frontal armor of the turret which is the thickets part of the tank in the event it comes under fire and to protect the vulnerable hull, turret down though might not entirely be capable with this tank but generally speaking the pros outweigh the minor cons to the US military.

If I'm not mistaken we might have had some of those because I know we have some foreign stuff

Maybe. Assuming the A3 doesn’t have a trophy system.

Performance ticked all our boxes , but logistically its not possible for our smaller military's . Fuel consumption was too high without the US's insane logistics support.

​@Husker5454, it's the rich man's battle wagon. But as far as tanks go, the Leopard, Challenger, and M1 are all very similar.

The latest Challenger, Abrams and Leopard; the trio of the best.

Happy to see everyone agreeing that all three are top of the line and not one is necessarily "better" than the other while each one has their pros and cons.

@@mikewingert5521are you British? Do you like the usa and Americans?

Cav Scouts are where the Army sticks you if you’re too fat to be Infantry, but still too dumb to do anything else. From a former 11B 🫡

Yep and the Russian Kornet turned them to dust in Ukraine!

@@margelatu79 LOL kinda like your S-400'S yeah LOL!

I got pictures of one Challenger 2 that was hit by 3 rpgs one hit on side and two hits on front it was still mobile and need a new sight and small stuff

@@margelatu79What happened to your t72’s 😢😢😢

@@margelatu79 no it didn't.....only one challenger 2 has been destroyed in Ukraine and that was because it threw a track after hitting a mine, Artillery destroyed the tank later not the Kornet.

If you don't think that our one trillion dollar US military can deal with cheap, off the shelf commercial drones then your probably in the wrong comment section.

there is no point in adding armor to cover the sprocket, just adds more weight and even if a tank gets hit in the side where the sprocket is itll also destroy the engine

Thats because it doesnt have one

But when I got to ft hood they already had the v3’s

They’ve spent the last decade upgrading old Abrams.

@@mw9297 yea I know but units aren’t getting those v3’s ft Irwin just got there’s like a month ago I think from a friend that is stationed there and they haven’t use Abram’s tank im a while

Bro that’s what I’m saying how did fort Irwin get sep v3s before carson. Our tanks haven’t gotten a re fresh in like 15 years

@@herbtanner8701 and bliss still have the v2’s which is crazy

Hell yes bro👊🇺🇸🇵🇱

Why would you think we don't ?

the Abrams uses the Israeli Trophy active protection system

doesnt work @@gus808

It's comin

the junk that gets bogged in mud@@T_81535

Bad hull armor, no spall liner

no spall liner comrad same hull armor as the original abrams i swear!!!!! the tons and tons of extra weight are coming from the air!

If you want an accurate version of the Abrams, it's a tank that can out see, out range, out shoot, and out survive any other tank on the battlefield. That is what general dynamics had in mind when they designed the Abrams because that's what the army had specified that they wanted.

Armor upgrade

😂 Он никогда там не окажется, вредно для имиджа.

@@oldwizard93 Vredno dla imija Rossie.

@@yehornaumov5893 да-да, тоже самое про леопарды говорили. Кстати, а где челленджеры и абрамсы что уже поставлены в украину? Не удивлюсь что их уже увезли обратно

@@oldwizard93 Ta net.

​@@oldwizard93 Idi poluchi zarplatu lukom.