And you get the cigar it's internal but it's coaxial with the main gun sights and controls

Its not 12.7 mm. It "caliber .50".

@@christopherhartline1863 same shit.

​@@christopherhartline1863 same thing 12.7x99mm is .50 You're just american

@@christopherhartline1863 Don't be dumb

?

There is such a thing as armour superiority.

@@Slaeowulf so why are people saying Tanks is useless

There are no such thing as tank other than water tank

@@ChandranPrema123 What people?

​@@Slaeowulf The people that never been in combat.

Abrams published 🤮🤮🤮🤮👎👎👎👎👎

Resist in Libya and irak

​@@mou5007 We (as in the US) did fine when it comes to the Abrams in both. It's when we took the armor off and sold them to other people who thinks a tank is a single unit that don't know how to use them is when they got destroyed. Kinda like every one of Russias top made tanks have been destroyed for the same reason. Can Any tank be destroyed, Sure. But Unlike Iraq, Lib, SA, We don't think a tank should ever be used by itself and Russia learned that the hard way

@@thefew.theproud.19Kilo Abrams is nothing for Russia or China you propagande mensonge 🤮🤮👎✍️

Good for you

Those are friend or foe indicators, I think they glow when looked at with Thermal cams (but I forget the details) . The ultimate goal though it's they are a quick point of identification to help prevent friendly fire.

@@Slaeowulf 😂😂

They are panels. Can't remember what there made out of but are flimsy and light weight. The section they cover keeps that section of armor slightly cooler then the rest of the slope that is not coverd so when you see it through thermals you'll see two big square dark areas so you can identify it as friendly.

What gave you the impression this was not considered?

There are special mine plows for tanks.

Utube m1 assault breacher vehicle

Iron fist?

It can run off diesel

@@thefew.theproud.19Kilo Ikr. The OP of the comment is still using old ass sources.

I believe the Australian Abrams has diesel engine.

T-14s were spotted in Donbas 🤡

@@SamuelSchehrer Those were waiting for a tow truck to bring back to the factory.

​@@Baltic_Hammer6162 🤣😂🤣😂

⁠@@SamuelSchehreroesn’t mean shit if the tank is never to be found in or around combat. Russians and sympathizers love to quote “T-14 this, blah blah that”, but in reality it lives more scarcely than the chupacabra. Rare, disputable sightings here or there, but we can actually see the damage the chupacabra leaves behind unlike the T-14.

Это можно исправить, отправьте на Украину, но этого не сделали, чтобы горели других стран танки, ничего личного, бизнес 👏

True. Its like saying combat jets are obsolete because there are SAMs. The reason there are a lot of anti-tank weapons is because the tank is such an effective and dangerous weapon system. Same with SAMs. And there will always be periods in which either protection or missiles have the upper hand compared to tanks and combat jets. Like all weapon systems you have to use them properly. If you are just rushing into well defended areas without combined arms like Russians did you are going to lose a lot. But if you use combined arms like US does you won't. US Thunder Runs in Bagdad proved that even in its most vulnerable area (urban area) tanks are very effective and survivable. What is proven in practice is that light vehicles and light infantry are to vulnerable to pretty much everything. Drones are overrated. You can jam the signal between drone and operator and anti-drone systems are going to be deployed on tank upgrades or new designs.

Is this the Abrams who can be destroyed by an old RPG-7 and does not know how to drive where there is no asphalt?

@@andreyt7687 No Olga, it’s the Abrams that has been destroying every russian tank since 1991.

@@NZobservatoryYou are lier. Abrams did not destroy a single Russian tank. And the fact that the Abrams get stuck in the mud is a fact. And they are destroyed by old grenade launchers, this is a fact.

@@andreyt7687 lol comrade. The Abrams destroyed *everything.* It made russia’s garbage tanks look like broken toys.

@@NZobservatory Abrams is useless shit. It gets stuck in the mud, is too complicated and breaks down at every step.

No. There is no Abrams that can be destroyed by an rpg7 and none has. And the abrams can drive mostly everywhere. From the soft sands of iraq, the mud of Europe, and the snow of the arctic circle. There is plenty of videos of Abrams being hit by atgms. STRONGER than rpg7 and shrugging them off

@@GOD719 There are many videos online of Abrams getting stuck in the mud. And how Abrams is destroyed by rpg-7. You're a liar.

Nah, you mean Older Abrams like M1A1

​@@andreyt7687rpg 7 can't destroy Abrams. In fact,​Abrams​can took it in the face and survive. May be you are seeing the blow out panels of old M1s burning and think tank is destroyed. No, it's a safe system for crew. Tank is repairable as only the blow out panels damaged.

And yet you watched and committed on the video lol.

Fly high t90 turret just like 911

lol, the Armata sucks

That is why it's turret won't fly off high into the sky when hit. ;)

@@nationalsniper5413 not really we just don't like autoloaders (for now). Meggitt developed a rather good autoloader for the Abrams but they don't seem to like it

152 is not in existence

@@williamspitzschuh8167 Read it again ...to educate yourself....and stop showing how stupid you are.

No.

They don’t want new US tech in the hands of Russia, and they know they are just going to get blown up by lancet drones

Because those 40 years old tech are better than even 20 years old Russian tech

Chalanger 2 tanks weren't in Ukraine yet

your point being?

We wont give them even close to this tank it's just the basic like we let Saudi Arabia build

@@dannywaller4397 But still better than anything Russia has. Armor wise probably comparable to Challenger 2 or Leopard A7.

Those tanks are still superior to the T80/T-90s.

It can't. Only the rear and top.

@@nationalsniper5413 It was done in Lebanon, 2006!!!! By Hezbollah fighters. Rpg-29 and more modern. Double tandem warheads. Newer Russian ATGMs have triple tandem warheads...

@nationalsniper5413 M1A2 has obsolete heavy depleted uranium Armour. More vulnerable than you may believe. U.S. soldiers were burned inside when frontal Armour was penetrated by Rpg-29 in Lebanon, 2006. Wasn't on the news here.... You can verify online...

OMG SHOULDER FIRED ATMs?????? FREE MONEY LAUNCHED FROM SHOULDERS??? 🤑🤑🤑💸

@@matthewlewis-zw3tf tandem warheads have next to nothing effect on non-ERA armor

That’s easier said than done. It cost cost to develop a brand new MBT. And it’s uncertain whether a brand MBT is worth the money or not unless it tastes actual combat. Besides, the Abrams already has a strong proven track record in battle. It’s unlikely that it’ll need a brand new replacement anytime soon. If it were to get replaced, it’ll likely be in the form of a newer Abrams tank variant built to suit the needs of the modern battlefields like the Abrams-X design.

well the airforce is upgrading their F-15s to the F-15EX version and they are working on making it so they can fly F-16s autonomously. Also they are working on a design for a new tank but that's a few years away. Other platforms were deemed to need a new vehicle first. The first was the JLTV to replace the humvee, which is operational. The AMPV to replace the M113 is also about to come out. The M10 Booker light tank or MPF depending how you want to call it is starting production. Next is the Bradley replacement with the OMFV, the winner should be picked out this year. A new light transport has just been picked which is the V280 Valor and then theres teh new light attack helicopter which should see a winner chosen I believe this year as well. After that I think the MBT will be next. Army has alot of modernization projects recently and the tank has been pushed back because even though its old, its still one of the best tanks out there today.

Yeah because a 76mm Sherman is going to penetrate the armour on a modern MBT

@@36thulsterdiv72 I said an upgraded Sherman 🙄Yugoslavia did put a big long 122mm gun on their shermans. So why can't we then put a 120mm gun on it that can fire the same ammunition as M1 Abrams and Leopard2?

Gas turbine engine. Just like Russian T-80. Except that Abrams turret won't blow off when hit.

@@nationalsniper5413 You silly Americans won't fight Russia in Ukraine. America talks a big game, but no action. Continue to fight your proxy wars. At some point you Americans will have to use your own blood. The world will be waiting, America. MOTHER RUSSIA RISING

Fact: Turbine engines can run on diesel

So your what? A five star general or something?

Diesel engines definitely have their own set of advantages but the turbine engine has: Great Power to weight ratio ( They weigh a lot less than diesel engines of the same power.) More reliability in terms of not having as many mechanical problems, enables high mobility, fuel flexibility, as well as quit operating sounds and no visible fumes.

🤣

The diesel and gas turbine topic is definitely a hot topic but the advantages of the turbine engine are: High power to weight ratio, more mechanical reliability, fuel flexibility, enables high mobility, quiet operating sounds and no visible exhaust.

Thing is this tank was designed to fight Russia in these areas

@@chasemccall391 During summer, fall and winter. Ukrainian military criticizing German 155mm howitzer due to mobility issues it shares same track design if not same track as Abram.

Extremely stupid comment. Both Leopard 2 and Abrams actually use wider tracks than the T-90. The T-90 is on 580 mm tracks, the Leopard 2 and Abrams on 635 mm tracks. They just seem wider on Russian tanks because the tanks are much smaller. The Leopard 2 and Abrams actually have lower ground pressure than a T-90. They are heavier but have the mentioned wider tracks and are substantially longer vehicles, increasing ground touching track area even more. The ground pressure of a T-90 is 0.94 kg/cm2, the ground pressure of a Leopard 2A6 is 0.83 kg/cm². The power/weight ratio of the Leopard 2 and Abrams is higher than a T-90 aswell, even the latest T-90MS with a power/weigh ratio of 23.5 hp/tonne is below the power/weight ratio of a Leopard 2A6 with 24.0 hp/tonne. Rubber track pads are mounted for peacetime to protect infrastructure (you know, the thing Russia barely has any of). For combat operations trackpads can be removed/not changed after wear down. It's a myth that Soviet/Russian tanks are more mobile than their NATO counterparts. Not to mention close to non-existing reversing speeds on eastern designs. Ukraine mentioned the PHZ 2000 had comparably high maintenance because it also delivered order of magnitudes more ordnance than any other system in Ukraine (or in the world by that metric). Mobility was not criticised, it was moreover praised because it was the fastest shoot-and-scoot capable system in their inventory.

@@jonny2954 L'il Jonny angry much?

@@jeanettewest Stating facts.

So why does Ukraine want them so much? These tanks were designed to fight the Russians in Europa so they were build for that battleground.

@@nationalsniper5413 because what other choices do they have ?

Elaborate?

You're screwy if you believe that 😅

Yeah, probably because the Bradleys would get them first, just like Gulf War

​@@joaopaulopeluzio4195 Yeah, those TOW missiles are no joke. Main reason why the Bradley destroyed more tanks in the Gulf War than the Abrams I believe. I hope we get to see those two in action working together.

You are high

Russian tanks are superior because Russian turrets can fly 100 feet in the air 🤣

Lmao ok

If Mr paralel reality here says so then it must be true

Very few were actually lost. Only by 500km IEDs. Russian tanks are destroyed by far far less because they have weak armor and ammo in crew compartment. Russian tank turrets make more flying hours than the Russian Air Force. Russian Air Force still doesn't have air superiority over Ukraine against much weaker country. Russian Army unable to defeat much smaller Army in war.