You hear all the time that the abrams and bradley are the best of the best and are rarely if ever exposed to any criticism. But is that really true? Here are some videos that list a suprisingly massive amount of flaws these 2 vehicles have. Even if part of the facts are true it shows that there are far better vehicles out there
a series about the M1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULC0TOiZZzc&feature=plcp
a series about the bradley:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuR7OHApg5Y&list=PLDDB13487B03615F5&index=1&feature=plpp_video

From the details: "Yet, it's the most popular tank ever built."

Err what?

I stopped watching after 1 minute. Reading "...nearly every round it's main gun fires are purely anti-tank weapons, which aren't effective against material, structures or personnel; these comprise more than 95% of what tanks must fight on any battlefield."

An incredibly dumb statement (even when excluding the grammatical errors).

You've got a point Derp but those links don't really help much. There have been reports of anti-tank weapons used in Iraq that have hit and killed M1A1s. Unfortunately no-one from the US will ever admit to it.

I'll openly admit it, and I've known tankers to openly admit it. The whole "INVULNERABLE TANK" thing is mainly an internet phenomenon for both Eastern and Western vehicles.

_________________

My cousin was a tank commander in Iraq, and he's talked about it a couple times. I know that there have been occasions where US tanks have been forced out of action for one reason or another, and I've only heard about one total loss, and I don't know if thats what you mean by "killed", the biggest danger is dismounting from sniper fire, etc or gigantic IEDs. It's probably the safest place to be on the battlefield, crew losses have been minimal.

This may be partly because IEDs were responsible for almost 2/3 of US deaths in Iraq, and the insurgents would typically target vehicles with less armor to inflict more casualties.

They aren't indestructible, but there is no doubt that they are a force to be reckoned with.

I'd love a really decent comparison between each "modern" tank. Those videos aren't even remotely informative.

As much as I'd love to shut the mouth of people saying "All american stuff is gold" with facts to prove they aren't the best everywhere, it's strangely hard to find around.

Except maybe for the whole F-35 stuff.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

Well there aren't really tank "stats" out there like in W:EE... when it comes to modern tanks, their all pretty nasty. It all comes down to the people operating the tank and how its used.

I wouldn't make the claim that all American stuff is gold, but it definitely isn't dirt.

Tbh, reputation is created by real combat experience. Abrams has it more than any other top tier MBT. Iraqis may not be very awesome enemies but still far better than Talibs or not having any combat experience at all.

This seems like a blatant shot against Americans all tanks have there problems
The abrams has seen more action than any other Western tank
the main problems with it are the massive fuel consumption and early difficulties of the gas turbine engine in Iraq
the "invulnerability" comes from the fact that it hasn't been killed by another tank and rather weapons designed specifically for anti tank purposes these facts also seem to be from the older series rather than the newer ones seeing as the M1A2 sepII is easily comparable to the newest leo 2
On a similar note the Challanger 2 also has a good amount of problems especially with its gun which is rifled which while good a few decades ago is relatively redundant as modern rounds have fins which can guide them to the target this rifling also makes it unable to accept NATO rounds that combined with the fact that there aren't nearly as many as there should be i believe something like 400 at most
The T-90 also has a list of problems including relatively thin armor and a poor auto reloader

Also this video is so biased and wrong it's not even funny for instance it claims that it had the highest loss rate of any coalition tank in the 1990's Gulf War yet it fails to mention that it was easily the most used had the most kills and was not lost to an enemy tank
it lacks actual facts and does not state statistics
another false fact is that it is dangerous to its crew and has poor protection which is utterly false the crew protection is easily comparable to the chally 2 which is in itself overrated the abrams uses DU and chobum armor neither of which are dangerous and it has blow out panels to keep the crew as safe as possible
next time find a less biased and untrue video