M1 Abrams, All variants: Current and future.

[thundereagle1997]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB8D732D4D74C9FCC
Blacktail Defence's playlist can explain the problems of the M1 in any way better than I could explain here. He has years of research on all of  the different  military services   & figured out the flaws of the designs of military hardware procurements  & missions.

[zenrat]

Yeah, but we don't have time to watch that (or get sucked into the great time thief that is you-boob).  Can you summarise for us?
Bullet point his conclusions please.

[Old Wombat]

It's OK, Fred, I've watched more than enough to know that Black Tales De Fence is an idiot who makes unsupported statements with photo's showing what he wants people to see. He fails to show photo's of his favourite Russian & Chinese tanks sitting with their turrets blown half-way across a suburb by an RPG but the M1 destroyed by several hundred kilograms of HE is "weak" & a "failure", or bogged in a field, or failing to hit a target twice the size of one any modern Western tank can hit at twice the range, or stuck with the air intakes for their very unreliable engines full of crap. He also has no understanding of US & most Western armoured tactics, or that the tactics used in the Middle East are nothing like the tactics used in Europe or Asia.

All in all, he's a waste of a couple of hours of my time & an ignorant git.

[PR19_Kit]

All in all, he's a waste of a couple of hours of my time & an ignorant git.

I'll take it you don't reckon him then?   

[Old Wombat]

All in all, he's a waste of a couple of hours of my time & an ignorant git.

I'll take it you don't reckon him then?   

That would be a fair assessment.

[seadude]

Does this loudmouth videographer on Youtube have any real combat experience? Any military experience at all..........in tanks or anything else?
It's one thing to have real military experience in tanks and quite another to just simply read/talk about them.
Reading and talking about tanks is no substitute for actually being in one and actually operating it.
Until this guy has actually changed an engine, fired the main gun, or driven an M1 tank, then all his loudmouth banter about the M1 is just that..........banter.
He can quote all the reports, journals, websites, articles, etc. he wants. But I'd rather hear directly from the people who operate the tanks like the gunners, drivers, mechanics, and commanders what their opinions of the tank are.
Why should I listen to only 1 person? I need to hear BOTH sides of the story. Not just one from this Youtuber.
Maybe there is some truth to what this guy is saying about the M1 tank. But I'll never know because I'm only seeing one side of the coin, know what I mean?

[kerick]

If he did some real research he would find the story of the M-1 that got stuck and ended up shooting five Iraqi tanks while immobile and took hits from the Iraqi tanks that barely scratched the paint. BTW, any and all tanks, like any other vehicle, will get stuck. Also the story in the book "Thunder Run" about the M-1 that broke down in enemy territory. The Army tried to destroy it to prevent its capture and be shown off as some war trophy by Saddam's forces. They tried everything including shots from other tanks and couldn't do it. IIRC it took an Air Force Maverick missile to do it. The tank was eventually rebuilt and put back in service. This guy does sound like he's full of it.

[scooter]

figured out the flaws of the designs of military hardware procurement

That one is easy.  Everything the government procures is by the lowest bidder (even if it seems bloody outrageously expensive)

[jcf]

figured out the flaws of the designs of military hardware procurement

That one is easy.  Everything the government procures is by the lowest bidder (even if it seems bloody outrageously expensive)

Which is a myth that refuses to die. 

[thundereagle1997]

The gas turbine just doesn't work in tanks the depleted uranium armour is flawed heavy and toxic because uranium is radioactive, unmanned turrets don't work at all, the narrow track isn't effective for rough terrain use there isn't a v shaped armoured hull. for protecting against mines it's too heavy to operate from any bridges similar to the tiger b. Smoothbore guns aren't reliable and are inferior to rifled guns. the logistic are poor and the crew are uncomfortable sitting in cramp conditions, the ergonomics are poor the endurance is abysmal the design is outdated, the logistics are terrible because fuel trucks are extremely vulnerable on the battlefield and against  thermobaric the M1 is screwed. A combat reliable tank might be the only way to counter the T-14. No offence to anyone in particular.

[Old Wombat]

The gas turbine just doesn't work in tanks

The turbine works at least as well as any diesel & can use more fuels than most other multi-fuel engines (not my preferred type of engine but I'm a traditionalist).

the depleted uranium armour is flawed heavy and toxic because uranium is radioactive

The DU armour is slightly radioactive but the real culprit for the slight increase in radioactivity-caused illness amongst Abrams crews was the DU ammunition - you really should pay more attention to details.

the narrow track isn't effective for rough terrain use/there isn't a v shaped armoured hull. for protecting against mines/it's too heavy to operate from any bridges similar to the tiger

The M1A2's ground pressure is only about 2 psi higher than that of the T-80 (which is lighter than your vaunted T-90 & uses the same track links) & is lighter than that of the average human/very few tanks have a V-shaped hull &, even on those that do, they're not overly effective against mines because of the width of the vehicles & the fact that the track wheel-arms need to be supported/most tanks are too heavy to operate over "3rd World" bridges, which is why bridging tanks exist.

Smoothbore guns aren't reliable and are inferior to rifled guns

Better tell that to the Russians, the 125mm gun on the T-90 is a smoothbore. The British were the last to use a rifled tank gun on the Challenger 2, which has since been upgraded to a 120mm smoothbore, as the smoothbore can fire a larger range of munitions including better HE rounds (by the way, yes, there are a lot of different types of anti-tank/armour rounds used by the West & only a few HE rounds because people don't come with different types of armour & one or two types of HE round can deal with them quite effectively).

the logistic are poor ...... the logistics are terrible because fuel trucks are extremely vulnerable on the battlefield and against  thermobaric

Did you see the logistics trail for the Russian T-72s during the Russian invasion of Ukraine? What a mess!

the crew are uncomfortable sitting in cramp conditions, the ergonomics are poor

Better tell that to Nick Moran (The Chieftain on YouTube), he judges everything against the M1s he lived in in Iraq &, so far, almost nothing has compared to the comfort & ergonomics of the M1 ... Russian tank ergonomics are abysmal.

the endurance is abysmal

True, the range is pretty piss-poor but, unlike the Russian tanks the M1 was built for the Cold War era, where the focus of Western tank designers was defence, while the Russians have always focussed on offence.

the design is outdated

It is certainly old, which might explain why the US has been investigating new designs to replace it but, notice, they haven't jumped on the "newest is best" bandwagon, they've been testing different designs.

A combat reliable tank might be the only way to counter the T-14.

You'll notice that the Russians haven't fielded any T-14s into combat & the few T-90s they have have fared little better than the T-72s & T-80s, & published intel out of Russia is hinting that the T-14 is proving to be quite the white elephant for the Russian military (& is highly reliant on free access to Western technology).

No offence to anyone in particular.

No offence to me, the M1 is not my favourite tank; I think the Challenger 2 & Leo 2 have more going for them, & the Korean K2 looks pretty interesting, too.

But I do like to check facts & not rely on some tosser with an axe to grind before I make my mind up.

[jcf]

... not rely on some tosser with an axe to grind before I make my mind up.

You bad man, you'd be no fun in Facebook groups telling people that the youtube link they posted
is a channel full of inaccurate moronic drivel produced by an ignorant wanker.
 

Oh wait, that's what I do.

[thundereagle1997]

https://www.combatreform.org/lightcombatteams.htm
We need a modern that solves all of the problems that the Abrams has. Not an attack on anyone in particular.

[thundereagle1997]

http://www.combatreform.org/ARMORHISTORY/
http://www.combatreform.org/lighttanks.htm
https://www.combatreform.org/airbornetanksnoexcuse.htm
Seriously the Abrams weighs 85 tons! That's far too heavy for a main battle tank because that's more in the heavy tank class of armored vehicles.
https://www.combatreform.org/heavytankshelicopters.htm
https://www.pogo.org/report/1990/01/armys-m1-tank-has-it-lived-up-to-expectations
https://eurasiantimes.com/how-to-kill-an-abrams-russian-experts-issue-a-guidebook-on-where-how-to-destroy-the-us-main-battle-tank/
http://www.combatreform.org/itmaneuversabattalion.htm
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-new-tanks-are-overkill-and-overweight/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a35339517/m1-abrams-tank-is-getting-too-heavy/

[scooter]

https://www.combatreform.org/lightcombatteams.htm
We need a modern that solves all of the problems that the Abrams has. Not an attack on anyone in particular.

Again...what problems?  The Abrams was designed to go toe to toe against the best toe Soviet Army had.  And, again, it is a mature combat system, that is part of a combined arms doctrinal approach to warfare, where Infantry, artillery, rotary and fixed wing all play a role.

And the casement vehicles your link references (STuG, Herbert, etc.)? Those are defensive assets.  If you don't have 360 visibility and the ability to attack in 360 degrees, you're dead if you're just using casement vehicles in the attack.

Seriously the Abrams weighs 85 tons! That's far too heavy for a main battle tank because that's more in the heavy tank class of armored vehicles.

The concept behind the main battle tank is that it replaces and consolidates all the abilities of the previous multiple classifications of "tank" into one asset.  I'd like to see a World War 2 heavy tank go rolling across the desert at 50 mph.

And, again, your links ignore doctrinal considerations.  And, I don't know, with 2000 Abrams built, there've only been 23 combat hull losses.