​@Power لُلُصّبُلk al did you even watch the video? you can hear the people talking as the damn thing is passing by under full power now go find a diesel powered tank video under full power drive by all you hear is engine can barely hear the track pads over the engine. obviously you never been around one and a diesel tank maneuvering at the same time the jet is way quieter from the front and sides only the rear is sound level about the same and the fact that people in general have trouble hearing high pitch noise the jet makes and the fact that its a consistent sound the brain does not perceive or locate it well compared to a piston engine the human brain can easily pick out and track the cyclic pattern a diesel engine makes

@Power لُلُصّبُلk al Yes when you’re right behind it and next to it. It’s got the nickname whispering death because it’s so quiet when it’s not that far from you. Taken from an online source: “The Abrams earned quite a reputation during the 1982 REFORGER exercise between the USA and Canada - the turbine-equipped vehicles were so silent that they were capable of sneaking up on “enemy” formations, earning the nickname “Whispering Death”. Very unlikely, I know, but it’s true. It’s super loud right next to you, but just from a few metres away, it’s dead silent.

@Wool Verigne ^

@@bravoA-su8xm if it was electric you wouldn't hear it at all

@Power لُلُصّبُلk al You have lost your mind. This tank was called the whispering death for a reason. a Diesel powered tank like the T-72 can be heard from miles out with the loud diesel engine it has. You have no clue.

one of the governors broke on one of our tanks...we clocked it at 65 mph...

trolololol

holy jesus that is terrifying.

Literally neither of these are true,

@@belgianfried who i see here...

Abrams: did you say oil?

Commander is operating the turret, Gunners main sight port is closed and i doubt he would use the optical sight for this, those people are too close... aaaaand you can see the head of commander, my bet is, he is the one playing with turret. :-)

dumbasses didn't see the barrel cover was on lol

You can replace the track or Track pads...

@@CCM1199 the track pads alone go for like 20k for one whole track though

My dad enlisted in 1991 (during the Gulf War). One day, I'm with my family on base and I saw an Abrams maneuvering, I thought it was the coolest thing!

L

hope you're doing well! wish i got to see one like that, maybe not my house though.. 😅

I'm sorry your fence got knocked down.

Look what I can do...

no, WhiteColorsMatter!

@@KABKAKIy_KAPATEJI_DOP I think because it's widely used in middle east desert

Black isn’t good camouflage in the desert.

Allons!

M1a3 SEP 3 weighs in at 72 Tons. Even an old M1a1 gets EASILY stuck in ANY mud. This is a "Smoke and Mirrors" MBT. Rather the F35 of Tanks.

lol

It depends. Seeing on how clean and new this is, they might of not put the CITV unit on yet.

+AMX-56 Leclerc That's not how that works. They are factory built or rebuilt as a certain variant. This is an M1A1. It lacks the CITV and has the original M1A1 bustle rack APU and not the M1A2 internal battery system, as well as the M1A1 commander's cupola an M2HB mount.

Carter Wellington Ahh, I didn't know.

Its an M1A1SA. The biggest giveaway to it being an M1A1SA is the Commander's weapon station. It has a Night Vision .50 Cal mount.

No its a bore plug atleast I think

Nah, rubber pads on the track, and the pressure on the ground is really light, bout 15 psi. A passenger car is 30 psi. Kinda freaks me a little bit with how much heavier an Abrams is

@@panzerwolf494 the newest variant sits at 147200 Yeah that’s scary to think about how one of those weigh as much as 34 2019 Honda civics….

Ok

There are no M1A1 AIM's in the Fleet. They have all been upgraded. This tank is the M1A1SA tank. Dead giveaway is the Night vision CIWS....the M1A2/M1A2 SEPv2. further down the road the SEPv2's got a CROWS .50 CAL weapon station.

Thank you for asking but we respectfully decline. Your target audience is not one that would likely be found or needed here, i.e. we cater to musicians and music lovers. The video of the tank is just something cool our guitarist filmed. Again, thank you for even asking but we must decline and wish you the best of luck. -The 6550's

@@The6550s thank you :)

No

Its scattering happens on record or monitor

haha i understanded

lol

A brand new Abrams is almost $9,000,000, where did you get your figure from? All NATO MBT’s are most definitely in the millions.

@@Brandon_J The video says so at 1:08 Edit: nevermind, TRACK REPLACEMENT, is 60k... I completely misread that.

@@VoLCoMzYaDiGG I missed that too. But yeah that just goes to show how expensive it is. If track replacement alone is 60k, imagine how much the technology costs or parts for the turbine engine, etc etc. It’s crazy how much money the US spend on their military.

@@Brandon_J All the electronics must cost a fortune as well. I imagine thats where most of the money goes.

@@VoLCoMzYaDiGG The engine alone is about $880,000 according to the manufactures website. So yeah I imagine the tech makes up for most of the rest of the millions. The composite armour plus the gun too? They’re probably in the millions also.

No.

@@The6550s what a chad

It's an A1, specifically an A1SA.

Most random comment ever

with only 20 produced? good luck, lol

Not only is it heavier than an M1A2C, but it’s also longer and taller And more narrow And with a engine that’s almost twice as heavy, and makes less torque And less snappy acceleration Also how they’re sister tanks too, with the Abrams and Leo both using many of the same parts

It’s not.

As always for Russian 12- year olds ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

both are beautiful tanks nonetheless

@@evanpartin1323 The Abrams is a physically superior vehicle to the Leopard II. The Germans admitted it. Sorry.

@@classicgalactica5879 Talking about the Leopard 2A6. Sorry but that’s just not true. It’s better than the 2A4, for sure. But most definitely not the 2A6, practically the same, if not better manoeuvrability. Same gun, uses same rounds under different names. But the Leopard 2A6 has vastly superior armour packages, as well as extra spaced and extremely angled armour on the turret at the front. They’re both competitive tanks, but the Abrams is very outdated. And has some of the biggest weakspots tank designers mostly ironed out in the 80’s.

@@Brandon_J funfact, the Leo 2 has the same weak points and the arrowheads were designed to fix the mantle weak spot which all it did end up doing was pronouncing it. The M1A2C also has the same armor thickness to the 2A7, all while using Depleted uranium something much more dense, and the Abrams is better at maneuvering as it’s both smaller and has better acceleration. The crew space is smaller on the Leo too, and wanna call the Abrams outdated… the Leo didn’t even get generation 2 thermals until 2008 while the Abrams had them in 1999… The Leo’s engine also creates less torque and weighs 1500lbs more, and lasts a lot less miles due to being more complex and having turbochargers. And it’s also known the Abrams fires a better round while the Leo uses a longer barreled cannon for the extra velocity. As well as the Leo and the Abrams being roughly the same weight it turns out nowadays, while the Leo is both still longer and taller while being more narrow. And the leopard 2 has been killed 8 times by enemy fire across 2 wars 8 more than the American M1A1 and M1A2. While on paper the Abrams has been killed a total of a rough 23-55 times, across 5 wars. All were exactly from friendly fire and only 2 were destroyed to avoid capture of the tank. While more on paper than the leopard, that’s still less tanks destroyed due to incoming enemy fire of a 0-8 ratio. All while experiencing more than twice the combat usage That and hull ammo stowage in the Leo while the Abrams hull ammo stowage is a crew luggage compartment due to the use of it being outlawed thanks to the turret being able to carry all 42 rounds in the turret rack.

@@FoxtrotStudi0s Update i know you are an Abrams Fanboy but! 1) the Abrams uses a GERMAN gun Rheinmetall L44 as M256 2) Leopard 2 destroyed were outdated A4 models which were used in a stupid manner, even Abrams would have been destroyed in that position. Canada for example didn't lose a SINGLE Leopard in Afghanistan. 3) Abrams were destroyed in Iraq and also Iraq lost Abrams tanks to the IS, a numerous of Abrams tanks were lost due to IEDs. 4) Leopard 2 owners always win the NATO Tank challenges. 5) Leopard 2 Engine uses a less fuel than the Abrams and can be fueled with almost everything that burns. 6) The Arrowhead is not a weakspot it is not done to riccochet incoming sabot rounds, there is spaced armor which would take the kinetic energy off the projectile and warp it so it loses the momentum and woun't penetrate the frontal main armor. 7) There is a reason why more countries prefer the Leopard 2 over the Abrams.

Hey wrench. have you done track services on an Abrams? probably not. There is absolutely 0 danger when moving that fast on asphalt. let alone neutral steering the tank. The only issue I see with it is the fact that 0 track maintenance was conducted for you to think that. we are talking National Guard here. Im pretty sure that Command Maintenance monday's youll identify the issues and annotate it on the 5988's.

We all signed waivers.

I shot the video. I don’t have the time, money, or energy to produce CGI. The tank is very real.

Kill Merkava ? Hezbollah killed so many Merkava in Lebanon, the IDF turned an ran away !

What drew you to watch it? Having been with the women at this demo, the very last thing they felt was shame. What they did feel was an appreciation for the power of the American military and the deepest respect for the brave men (and women) who drive it.