Comments by "Viceral Man" (@viceralman8450) on "The Insane Engineering of the M1 Abrams" video.

  1. Noise and performance as the turbine are small and light but has a massive output. THe type of autoloader is different Russians use carrusel autoloaders, NATO used cassette autoloaders which are safer on the ammo storage department.
    58
  2.  Dominic Brunsmeier  lol this cl0wn
    39
  3. It a use almost anything flammable as fuel.
    8
  4. lol the hopium is high on vatniks.
    6
  5.  @n3v3rforgott3n9  Only the Chinese are a rival on that department.
    6
  6. lol that was fixed by redesigning the air filters back in 1992, the fuel problem was reduced plus the US logistics have no problem with the fuel, the export variants have a different composite not just steel, cope vatnik.
    6
  7. Cope tropical vatnik.
    5
  8. You can put those in a autoloaders look the casette type autoloaders on the Leclerc, the K2 ans the type 90/10.
    4
  9. Russia barely had 5.000 operational tanks and they have already lost 2.000 after one year.
    4
  10.  @Axzuel7878  Yeah but the ammo flaws it's too big to ignore, that's why the casette autoloaders are better.
    4
  11. It has a sensor that detects limp and fingers that ovoids that.
    3
  12. lol a circus participant.
    3
  13. lol a paint scratch.
    3
  14. zero, uranium emits alpha particles those can even go through a sheet of paper.
    3
  15. lol cope vatnik
    3
  16. NATO cares, how cares about your opinion?
    2
  17. Far from the best, lol. First 2A7V Second Abrams SEPv3 third Chally 3.
    2
  18. Abrams X 🤫
    2
  19.  @NZobservatory  Vatniks are much desperate lately smells like they are struggling even more in Ukraine.
    2
  20. THe Merkava is the weird kid of the Buch as all other MBTs use torsion bar or hydropneumatics suspensions.
    2
  21. lol you know someone is clueless when they have no idea that both Abrams and Leo 2 look alike becase they were born form the same tank program. 🤦‍♂
    2
  22. Cope vatnik.
    2
  23. They will get the M1A1 with a 120mm gun.
    2
  24. lol if you are low on money, but american is not.
    2
  25.  @kreuzrittergottes9336  Better go for those Rubles or Yuan that like 0.05 dolars each lol .
    2
  26. The gun is stabilized, and the lauder and turret move along so they can load the gun while on the move. The heaviest Abrams weight 66 tons..............
    2
  27. The US MOD already announce, that they will be given to Ukraine before summer. Cope.
    2
  28.  @DJaquithFL  Sure, but a tank is more than a mobile gun. It must acquire targets and distinguish them from allies, it must know which terrain is suitable to move though or it will get stuck on it, it must coordinate with other units. That tech just doesn't exist yet and drones have a human pilot behind that controls them. And there's no practical way to put three people to control a drone tank as their situational awareness would be abismal. Your idea is pure fiction for now.
    2
  29. lol "technologically backward" poke like a true moscovian.
    2
  30. Good thing the Javelin is an american wepon as well. lol
    2
  31. No variant of the Abrams uses a diesel engine. Stop making thing up.
    2
  32. lol nothing says broke that a defense budget of 886 billons USD. 🤡
    2
  33. lol
    2
  34.  @sashadala346  lol
    2
  35.  @sashadala346  lol first tank with composite armor was the american T95 medium tank, the t-80 had a worse operational range than an Abrams with 335km before been dry vs the 426km of Abrams.
    2
  36. lol first tank with composite armor was the american T95 medium tank, the t-80 had a worse operational range than an Abrams with 335km before been dry vs the 426km of Abrams......................
    2
  37. You mean like these? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM3mVDJO21c&ab_channel=IraqBattle Barely damaged.
    2
  38. The vatniks and the copium have arrived.
    2
  39. lol how people can be so naive, the info that matters are classified and not on the internet, thing a little buddy. 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂
    2
  40. lol ground presure check it out. The russian paper bear. Go jump a wall.
    2
  41. lol Abrams not Abrhams. 🤡🤡they will arribe before summer as the Pentagon said.
    2
  42.  @m26munk58  Chally 1 lacks the barrel reference sensor over the barrel as it has it it's a Chally 2.
    2
  43. lol the junk has proven to be just hype, 18 lost so far in Ukraine, the SEPv 3 is much better.
    2
  44.  @santacatarinaball7091  Its depleted cuz it is just U-238 instead of U-238 and U-235, but it is both radioactive and toxic anyway.
    2
  45. Not it won't, all NATO tanks were designed to operate in Europe so their ground presure is low despite their weight as the weight is well distributed by the running gear and tracks.
    2
  46. This comment is hilarious, most Russian tanks are legacy tanks form the soviet times they still lack both modern system and thermals even the most modern like the T-80BVM has no thermal for the commander in 2023 plus they are very rare not more than 800 tanks on the russian army are upgraded to modern-ish standards. Even if the Ukrainians recibe old models they still can use modern NATO ammo that will make short work of Russian junk. Russia has no air superiority, nor accurate artillery and they missile stock is running low after a year of no getting anywhere. They survived a year; three months are not a big deal. Cope vatnik.
    2
  47. War thunder is a Russian game. That's why.
    2
  48. nope lol
    2
  49.  @Jason-jb1vs  They were born from the same project, so they are pretty similar to each other.
    2
  50. It can use almost anything, but the US universal fuel is JP8.
    2
  51. They were built for Europe you remember the Cold War?
    2
  52. They can their ground presure is barely higher than the presure produced by russians tanks, so if they can't russian vehicles can't either.
    2
  53.  @winstonsmith7801  Weights doesn't matter, what matters is ground presure, as matter of fact the T-90 has a greater ground presure than the Abrams. Abrams has 1 kg per cm2 vs 0.94 kg/cm2 of a T-90, all tanks need constant maintenance due to their weight, there tungsten APFSDS as well, they are a similar performance lol.
    1
  54. All is public info that you can find on google.
    1
  55. Hoe your reverse engineer something with such basic information?
    1
  56.  @chokamilk272  No, American standard Abrams has ever been captured.
    1
  57. Chally 2 is heavier, the turbine high frequency noise dies rapidly with distance unlike a diesel, autoloaders are slower than a human loader, good old Russian whataboutism, lol cope Ivan....
    1
  58. That's composite armor, NERA-nonexplosive reactive armor is different, and ERA is another this on its own.
    1
  59. Yeah, a US weapons launch to a US tank, just dream a guess. 🤣🤣
    1
  60.  @KrunoslavStifter  No where the russians paraded the empty tubes for cheap propaganda nothing else, anyway they can't use or copy them anyway.
    1
  61. IF the engine fails the whole thing can be removed and replace for another one in 30 minutes, so the tank can still be operative while the other engine goes to Poland.
    1
  62. The exhaust has bars on the entrance so nothing can be thrown in.
    1
  63.  @sethapex9670  Yeah good luck surviving that long next to an Abrams and its combat unit. Dreaming cost nothing do.
    1
  64.  @sethapex9670  Sure pal , because a competent AA force will let those drones fly on the first place lol......
    1
  65. Diesel in flammable, the difference with gas it that the ignition point is much higher.
    1
  66. lol cope vatnik.
    1
  67.  @rexdangus4484  You can be an american vatnik, weight matter little what matter is how the weight is distributed on the ground and Abrams ground presure is small, if the Pentagon is sending them, they already forsight that.
    1
  68. lol 1991
    1
  69. Kilometers per hour the measure 99% of the world uses.
    1
  70.  @fluffyturd5128  A 1.000 meters.
    1
  71.  @kreuzrittergottes9336  lol you think money still is back up in gold anywhere? 🤣🤣
    1
  72. HESH is obsolete as composite armor negates the transfer of the shock wave to the inner layer of the armor.
    1
  73. Damn someone skipped physics at school, the efficiency of the heat exchanger is not 100% lol.................................🤦‍♂🤦‍♂
    1
  74. No sit Sherlock.
    1
  75. The T-90 is just a T-72BU so technically still is a soviet vehicle.
    1
  76. Si vis pacem, para bellum. Yet spineless pacifist don't get it.
    1
  77.  @pieproducer  Yeah, say that to the invading force, they for sure will pass it to laughingstock department.
    1
  78. No need they have about 10k on storage.
    1
  79.  @Axzuel7878  Weight is not the problem ground presure is, and ground presure for an Abrams is pretty good.
    1
  80.  @Axzuel7878  That's logistic not tactical mobility during combat. THe demonstrator is lighter just because is new so it uses modern materials. Save weight is good but the Abrams still is on the acceptable weight limit unlike the british challenger 2 with 75 metric tons of weight.
    1
  81.  @Axzuel7878  There's no rail between the UK and mainland Europe plus the Chally 2 weight 75 tons it is very heavy, transport it not easy despite the proximity of the UK. Abrams X is not a MOD request but a tech demostrator by GD to bring the army attention to get a state contract but it's a private venture and to date the army has shown no interest on acquiring it.
    1
  82. No, for long as AMP-HE will replace all ammo types except APFSDS.
    1
  83. lol you are obsolete, just like the T-55s russia is deploying.
    1
  84. Claro por eso los rusos perdieron 50.0000 T-34. 🤣🤣
    1
  85. Hello, one question does the driver has an escape hatch on the drivers compartment floor?
    1
  86. Myths lol
    1
  87. Not the only, neither the first on using a turbine.
    1
  88. Make armies move without them is WW1 again.
    1
  89. lol upgrades exist like SEPv 3 unlike Russia using T-55 museum pieces.
    1
  90. lol ever heard of export variants?
    1
  91. False, they still use a human to load the gun.
    1
  92. Cope vatnik.
    1
  93. Sure which statistics again?
    1
  94.  @osmacar5331  Sure but where the source? Cuz as far as I know back on the day 1985 the Chally protection wasn't very good.
    1
  95.  @osmacar5331  Now TES upgrade makes the Chally 2 too heavy about 75 tons, while the engine is the same 1200HP, so the acceleration worse, been slow make it a easier target and the purpose of the upgrade goes out the window.
    1
  96.  @osmacar5331  How it will be if it hasn't entered in combat since 91, the loss of acceleration its very noticeable as it is now the slowest tank in NATO.
    1
  97.  @osmacar5331  The Taliban had not tanks or modern ATGMs so that shows nothing about its performance. It's NATO partners sport a similar protection while maintain agility by using a more power full engines, like the Abrams SEPv 3 who has hard kill APS but weight 66.8 tons and reach 62 km/h in just 14 seconds.
    1
  98.  @osmacar5331  It matter modern ATGMS have tandem warheads that like to ignore counter mesures, yes because an Abrams will stick around to be hit more than once, only NATO tank with hard kill APS on the field is SEPv 3, germany has not deployed it yet and the Brist are not even planning to do so, the only russian tank with hard kill APS is the Armata which is for parades and it not even in service. If your engine is underpowered the transmission can't make miracles.
    1
  99.  @gvi341984  Yeah, compare a jet with a tank, nice false equivalence right there. Yes, a fourth crew member is great they help with maintenance, surveillance and can replace another crew member on an emergency.
    1
  100. Like any tank.
    1
  101.  @DJaquithFL  A UAV is not a tank. 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂
    1
  102.  @DJaquithFL  No at all completely different vehicles, different challenges. There's not a single drone tank as a tank needs a crew of 4/3 unlike an aircraft that can be operated by a single person. To date the tech to make an operative drone tank does not exist.
    1
  103.  @DJaquithFL  Again a UAV is not a tank, needs are different. Such tech does not exist, yet do you get it. Currently a crew can operate a tank for far as the awareness of what's going on the field is too limited to make these vehicles viable, if they don't know what's going on they aren't useful until that is solved drone tanks are not going to be deployed, a UAV does not have this problems due to radars but such thing does not have a equivalent for land warfare.
    1
  104.  @ВассисуалийПупейкин  lol
    1
  105. For a 60 ton vehicle is pretty good.
    1
  106. Chally 3 will have a 120mm L55 gun from Rheinmetall. And a human lauder.
    1
  107. lol they fixed that in 1992. 🤣🤣
    1
  108. Like the T-90M?
    1
  109. Who invaded Ukraine?
    1
  110. It can burn anything flammable.
    1
  111. Not a single Abrams was used in Afganistan.
    1
  112.  @FeRoOOo71  If russian tanks are so good, why they have lost 2.000 on Ukraine so far?.......
    1
  113. They fight even worse than Irak, that's why they managed to lose 2.000 tanks in just one year.
    1
  114.  @versamax6307  They already lost Kherson. They also lost 2.000 in a year.
    1
  115. 66.8 and it's the armor not the engine the reason.
    1
  116. lol Anothy armchair general that fails to see the full picture. 🤦‍♂
    1
  117. Its public info, Sherlock you can find it on Google. 🤣🤣
    1
  118.  @XantherBlaze  Sure Sherlock arrested for discussing public information abide under the information act, as this info comes from either the manufacturers that have publish their specs to promote their product or declassified documents. 🤦‍♂
    1
  119.  @XantherBlaze  🤣🤣 Not even the same thing false equivalence at its finest.
    1
  120.  @XantherBlaze  He is supported by the law by both the Freedom information act and the first amendment both allow this, as its public information, available to the public, and he does not discuss classified information, because his sources are public. Look like Americans don't even know their own laws.
    1
  121.  @XantherBlaze  Do you even know your laws? Because he can do this, as this is perfectly legal.
    1
  122. Abrams X is not the nest USA MBTs is just a tech demonstrator by GD. Abrams had thermals for the gunner since introduction so it could see on the dark when soviets were using IR search light to go around. Abrams made the russians move to 125mm gun as their guns where unable to deal with it cut the bs then.
    1
  123. Lol check SEPv 3, cope Ivan.
    1
  124.  @lepermessiyah5823  The copper does not melts if deforms in to a superplastic EFP, that goes supersonic and that goes through the armor so HEAT is kinetic after all.
    1
  125.  @lepermessiyah5823  Can you get that the colapse on the cones creates an EFP, and at the end its pure kinetic energy what perforates the armor. You should read about the Munroe effect. Source: "Introduction to Shaped Charges, Walters, Army Research Laboratory, 2007" Page 17.
    1
  126.  @lepermessiyah5823  Following that logic regular ammunition is chemical as well, which makes no sense at all.
    1
  127.  @lepermessiyah5823  lol did you even read the study I use as source? Its kinetic the way the penetrator is created or accelerated doesn't matter.
    1
  128. lol easy to say that form home, in peace. But you speak like a true spineless P.
    1
  129. The M1028 its been replced by the AMP-HE.
    1
  130. The Armata platform is pure propaganda.
    1
  131. lol the other way around, as russia has lost 2.000 tanks themselves in Ukraine.
    1
  132. lol like that BS will generate 3.730 NM of torque at 3.000 RPM. The Dunning-Krugger is high on this one.
    1
  133. lol cope vatnik.
    1
  134. All the electronics are American.
    1
  135.  @HJ_Extravaganza  Depleted means is only U-238 not U-235, but U-238 still is toxic and radioactive.
    1
  136.  @sashadala346  T95 medium tank look it up. Also, so evidence suggest it also had the first smoothbore gun used on a tank, the 90mm T208.
    1
  137.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  Tungsten has shown no ill effects on humans.
    1
  138.  @samsonsoturian6013  It was upgraded like 15 times in that time, the current SEPv 4 has nothing to do with the original M1.
    1
  139. They were born from the same tank programs that's why. Yes and no, it has the best protection because Trophy APS, but not the best FCS or gun those belong to Leo 2a7V.
    1
  140.  @apersondoingthings5689  Highest penetration out of a L44 gun, the L55 has 25% more performance than the L44, so DM73 out of RH 120mm L55A1 would have a better performance, Abrams still uses gen 2+ thermals for the gunner and commander while 2A7V has 3rd gen for both, driving an Abrams ungoverned will damage the running gear, and the armor still has its flaws like the totally inadequate upper glacis, that's so thin that anything can go through it making it a giant weak spot.
    1
  141.  @apersondoingthings5689  Weak spots not the whole upper glacis been a weak place, Leopard has some protection there at least unlike Abrams, SEPv3 has not recived the third gen thermal yet they will be installed after 2025 due to delays on production, L55 is longer and works at higher presure that increases the muzzle velocity achieving a better performance despite using tungsten, 3BM42 mango con pen Abrams upper glacis from 2km despite the angle.........
    1
  142.  @apersondoingthings5689  Not yet, SEPv3 was just deliver in late 2020. And SEPv4 will be delivered not before 2025. Abrams upper glacis is just 38mm of steel angled at 83 degrees, the composite with uranium in located at the turet front, gun mantled and lower glacis. Leopard instead has composite on both lower and upper glacis. Huge protection flaw on Abrams.
    1
  143.  @apersondoingthings5689  lol talking about making stuff up, the king has arrived you can't know that simply because that classified. On the other hand, we know Abrams upper glacis is just 38mm of steel any anything more modern than 1985 can penetrate it yet the US army has not addressed the gigantic weak spot. You complain about Leo's armor when it is better than Abram's paper thing upper glacis of just steel, unlike Leo upper and lower glacis who are composite and offer much better protection. Still the upper glacis weak spot have not be fixed yet.
    1
  144.  @apersondoingthings5689  "The Leo 2s composite frontal armor can be penned by apfsds from the L7 gun." Sure any evidence? Drivers vision port on the T series is not nearly as massive as Abrams upper glacis.
    1
  145.  @apersondoingthings5689  320mm in Leopard 2a4 vehicles form 1985, now a days is more as Leo 2a7 received upgraded hull armor, to date Abrams still as 38mm of plain steel. Abrams upper glacis still is bigger, and the US army still have not correct it.
    1
  146. Too bad the tech is not there yet.
    1
  147. lol best a sucking on the field.
    1
  148. lol another armchair "expert".
    1
  149.  @ct4074  Sure you have Vatnik "expert". 🤣
    1
  150.  @batman_2004  🐷🇷🇺🐷
    1
  151.  @batman_2004  🐷🇷🇺🐷 Cope vatnik.
    1
  152. That's a Chally 2 nice try do.
    1
  153.  @sargesacker2599  That's a Chally 2, what ever is over the barrel proof it as chally 1 has nothing there.
    1
  154. Sure the that's why they have so many clients for the Oplot right?
    1
  155. Ruzzbots version of free speech is Russian propaganda.
    1
  156.  @Jason-jb1vs  The engine on the Abrams is better, Abrams has hard kill APS now, American ammo is better than German ammo ans the electronics are better as well.
    1
  157.  @Jason-jb1vs  The torque and acceleration at lower RPMs, the weight of the engine. A4 is better as it uses DU. Armata is for parades lol.
    1
  158.  @Jason-jb1vs  The torque and acceleration at lower RPMs, the weight of the engine. .. A4 is better as it uses DU. ... Armata is for parades lol....
    1
  159. lol this vatniks are delusional.
    1
  160. When you are "losing" but russia after 10 months can capture the 56th most populated city in Ukraine, while they could not take Kyiv, Odessa, Kharkiv, Poltava or any actual city with real importance. 🤣🤣 Then run from Kherson like rodents.
    1
  161.  @covert0overt_810  Cope you Ivan.
    1
  162.  @DB5652-v3r  Accuracy by volume that's explain russia lack of ammo.
    1
  163. Tungsten and titanium aren't rare earths, rare earths are elements 57 to 71 on the periodic table...........................
    1
  164. If the USA is sending these, they will fic that before the Abrams arrive.
    1
  165. lolo sus Ivan.
    1
  166. Good luck timing that lol
    1
  167. All on the video is public info.
    1
  168. That's how soviet ATGMs stabilize during flight.
    1
  169.  @rael5469  Yes by tumbling the closer it gets to target the less it tumbles.
    1
  170.  @rael5469  It will the circles became tighter until the missile stabilizes and the tumbling stops.
    1
  171.  @rael5469  Tumbling moving on a spiral in this case.
    1
  172.  @Axzuel7878  Yeah and that vehicle was abandoned, one of the resons were the reload time was very long like half an our long.
    1
  173. They will just move to a western doctrine.
    1
  174.  @JunkPhuJP  They are already mixing doctrines from infantry to artillery and more this will not be different either.
    1
  175. They still detonate on one hit, 18 T-90M have been lost in Ukraine so far.
    1
  176. The T95 medium tank from the USA was the first tank is using composite armor, The AGT1500 was in development since 1964 but the first tank in using a turbine engine wasn't soviet or american but the Swedish STRV 103 it used a Caterpillar 553 gas turbine engine in 1967. The only thing the soviets had was the smoothbore gun. Reseach is free buddy. 🤦‍♂
    1
  177.  @spearton-1912  But it was the first tank with composite armor doesn't matter if it was adopted or not. The T-64 had massive problem with its engine, the production of the composite armor, problems with the autoloader. But the soviets push it anyways the result a top-notch vehicle that worked half the time as was a headache to operate, that was practically unusable till the B variant entered service 13 years after the vehicle was introduced. By that time the west was designing vehicles with all those advantages and more but none of the problems of the T-64........................................
    1
  178.  @spearton-1912  And almost a prototype that's why it was a desastre until 1976, the french used autoloader before anyone else, then carrousel autoloaders then to detonate destroying the tank in just one hit, a problem that still hunt soviet/russian tanks to this day.
    1
  179. Nah too much weight for a slight boost on protection. Ther's better ERA out there.
    1
  180. Lol Russian are sitting over the ammo, like a pipe bomb such improvement can only be praised by a vatnik.
    1
  181. It's mostly the pollution they left behind after they hit something.
    1
  182. lol frontally can do nothing against it, while it is a giant soft target for the Abrams. 🤣🤣
    1
  183.  @digitalemotion3820  lol another "expert".
    1
  184. 🤣🤣Sure Ivan proof?
    1
  185.  @TheAmerican1963  wow 2.3 psi of difference what a tragedy, how it turns it just does it, advantages of a 1.500hp engine unlike the T-90 1.130 hp.
    1
  186. HESH is obsolete AMP-HE is much better.
    1
  187.  @indyfist9466  US army says it is already in service with selected units that operate the SEPv 3.
    1