I guess the possibility escapes you that any data can be purposely misrepresented, something you would have realized if you watch the rebuttal video, which you certainly did not. Then make this ridiculous rant:
I never stated such a thing, saying that I use Discovery Channel as my main source of info hurts your argument more than it does mine. I do not think the Abrams is the best, I personally view the Leopard 2 due to its versatility and cost.
Also, I’m not an idiot to forget the Abrams was an oppressive tank when it first came out and stomped every single team it faced. However, Gaijin tends to milk a nation making them good money, and that will continue to be my criticism of them, not that they are originally from Russia.
If you do not have any idea of who Mike Sparks actually is, there is no use talking to you about it. Your ignorance about him is very telling about what sources you trust to reinforce your arguments here.
What are you even talking about here? Saying the M1 wasn’t good despite its performance in the Gulf War is wild. You are the one in denial it appears.
Whenever you’re done being a schizophrenic, maybe we can have an actual dialogue.
And then when you realize what who Mike Sparks is and the way he tries to frame arguments, you’ll realize you’re backing the least reputable critic. I have discounted Mike Sparks well before you showed this video, what you think I dislike about him is completely wrong, it isn’t even about tanks in the first place. Hint: he is part of the Reformers and argued the M60 was better.
The M1 as a platform is old, but far from being a bad one. In fact, most other countries’ tanks are old, Russia being one of the worst offenders of that. I’d be lying if I’m arguing to say the Abrams is the best, which I’m not. You seem to try to argue that the tank is a scam which is… an interesting reach.



